Cases & Developments

Order denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at St. Catherine University, brought Bankruptcy Code automatic stay violation and common law intrusion upon seclusion claims against both the University and its outside counsel (the Firm), and alleged that the Firm violated multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In May 2023, as a “Collection Action” brought by the Firm on behalf of the University was ramping up before a district “Collection Court,” plaintiff filed for bankruptcy before a federal “Bankruptcy Court.” Following the Bankruptcy Court issuing notice of the “Bankruptcy Matter” Plaintiff was arrested on a bench warrant from the Collection Court. Then, after plaintiff’s counsel emailed the Firm and University additional information and the Firm was added to the Bankruptcy Matter, the Firm did not notify plaintiff’s counsel of a rescheduled hearing in the Collection Action. Once plaintiff’s counsel notified the Collection Court of the Bankruptcy Matter, the Collection Action was stayed. Subsequently, Plaintiff initiated a tertiary civil action against the Firm and University related to these alleged actions. Upon finding no irreconcilable conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and the FDCPA that would repeal the FDCPA provisions by implication, the court found plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to proceed on her FDCPA improper communication, false or misleading representations, threat to take action, and unfair practices claims. Noting that the FDCPA claims were largely predicated on the same underlying facts, the court declined to refer the Bankruptcy Code violation claims to the Bankruptcy Court. It likewise retained jurisdiction over her tort claims.