Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schaffhauser v. Citibank N.A.

September 25, 2007

ANNETTE M. SCHAFFHAUSER, PLAINTIFF
v.
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., AND ACADEMY COLLECTIONS SERVICE, INC., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. Background

This case arises out of a dispute over whether Defendants, Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. ("Citibank") and Academy Collections Services, Inc. ("Academy") violated the statutory rights of Plaintiff Annette M. Schaffhauser ("Plaintiff"), while attempting to collect credit card debt. Plaintiff claims that Defendants were abusive in their collection practices and seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 ("FDCPA"), the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 Pa. Stat. § 2270.1 ("FCEUA")

II. Discussion

A. Claims Against Citibank

The captioned case is a third complaint against Citibank filed by one of the Schaffhausers. Annette Schaffhauser and her husband Steve Schaffhauser filed duplicative claims that were consolidated into Middle District docket number 05-CV-2075. That action was dismissed on the bases that Citibank was not a debt collector but a consumer creditor. (See Ex. A, Schaffhauser v. Citibank, et al., 1:CV-05-2075, Opinion of September 19, 2007.)

Plaintiff argues that "Citibank cannot claim 'creditor' status under FDCPA" because Citibank "transferred, assigned, and/or sold alleged debt." (Complaint at ¶15.) Citibank replies that it is still the owner of the debt (creditor) and only engaged Academy Collection Service, Inc. to collect a debt on its behalf. As originator and owner of the debt, it is exempt under 15 U.S.C. § 1962(6)(F)(ii).

Because Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action under the FDCPA, that claim will be dismissed. The court will also decline to accept supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claim.

B. Claims Against Academy Collection Service, Inc.

On October 16, 2006, a summons was issued as to Defendant Academy Collection Service, Inc. No return of service was filed indicating that Defendant Academy was served and no waiver of service has been filed. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a rule shall be issued on Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as to Defendant Academy for failure to prosecute.

III. Order

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1) The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Citibank is GRANTED.

2) No later than September 28, 2007, Plaintiff Annette Schaffhauser shall show cause why this action against Academy Collection Services, Inc. should ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.