Danzer v. CACH, LLC, 2:16-cv-1990-JEO. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20190403b39
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN E. OTT , Chief Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Jonathan W. Danzer filed this action on December 13, 2016 against Defendant CACH, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA") and Alabama state law. (Doc. 1). After answering (Doc. 9), Defendant filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on March 21, 2017, stating that it had filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Y
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN E. OTT , Chief Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Jonathan W. Danzer filed this action on December 13, 2016 against Defendant CACH, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA") and Alabama state law. (Doc. 1). After answering (Doc. 9), Defendant filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on March 21, 2017, stating that it had filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New Yo..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN E. OTT, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Jonathan W. Danzer filed this action on December 13, 2016 against Defendant CACH, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA") and Alabama state law. (Doc. 1). After answering (Doc. 9), Defendant filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on March 21, 2017, stating that it had filed a Chapter 11 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. (Doc. 17). That prompted the court order a stay of these proceedings pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. (Doc. 18). In October 2018, Defendant moved to dismiss the instant action on the ground that Plaintiff's claims against it were discharged in Defendant's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. (Docs. 19, 20). The court entered a submission order that invited Plaintiff to file any opposition or other response to Defendant's motion by November 20, 2018. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff has since filed nothing. Upon consideration, the court1 concludes that Defendant's motion is well taken and that Plaintiff's claims are due to be dismissed with prejudice. See 11 U.S.C. § 1141. A separate final order will be entered.
FootNotes
1. The parties have consented to an exercise of plenary jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (Doc. 13).
Source: Leagle
