Filed: Apr. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2018
Summary: DEFENDANT DELTA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MANISH S. SHAH , District Judge . Defendant, DELTA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. ("Delta"), by its attorneys David M. Schultz and Brittney N. Cato, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), respectfully requests that this court grant it a judgment on the pleadings and dismiss Plaintiff Jeffrey Fleischer's ("Plaintiff") First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint"), with prejudice. In suppo
Summary: DEFENDANT DELTA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS MANISH S. SHAH , District Judge . Defendant, DELTA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. ("Delta"), by its attorneys David M. Schultz and Brittney N. Cato, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), respectfully requests that this court grant it a judgment on the pleadings and dismiss Plaintiff Jeffrey Fleischer's ("Plaintiff") First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint"), with prejudice. In suppor..
More
DEFENDANT DELTA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
MANISH S. SHAH, District Judge.
Defendant, DELTA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. ("Delta"), by its attorneys David M. Schultz and Brittney N. Cato, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), respectfully requests that this court grant it a judgment on the pleadings and dismiss Plaintiff Jeffrey Fleischer's ("Plaintiff") First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint"), with prejudice. In support thereof, Delta respectfully incorporates the arguments set forth in its February 15, 2018, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("MJP") (Dkt. #37) and states as follows:
As an initial matter, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges the exact same claims against
Delta as Plaintiff's Complaint, save for alleged fraudulent concealment. See Dkt. #1, PageID #19-34; Dkt. #59, PageID #867-884. While Plaintiff's Amended Complaint attempts to make Plaintiff's ICFA and FDCPA allegations more specific and tailored to the Defendants,1 no amount of additional specificity would make Plaintiff's ICFA and FDCPA claims against Delta plausible. As set forth in detail in Delta's MJP, there can be no legitimate dispute that Plaintiff's ICFA and FDCPA claims against Delta are outside of the applicable statutes of limitations.
Just like Plaintiff's ICFA and FDCPA claims, Plaintiff fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims against Delta are also still not plausible, even as Plaintiff attempts to similarly tailor his allegations. Boiled down, the specific facts set forth by Plaintiff that allegedly implicate Delta have not changed. See Dkt. #1, PageID #7-10; Dkt. #59, PageID #9-13. As such, Plaintiff's claims are no more plausible now than they were when Delta first filed its MJP. In fact, the "misrepresentations" now specifically attributed to Delta in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are the same "misrepresentations" that Delta identified for the Court in its MJP.
Nor does the withdrawal of Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim aid Plaintiff's cause. In its MJP, Delta explained how Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim was factually contradictory and undermined his other not-plausible claims and allegations. While Plaintiff has attempted to remove this impediment, his other claims are still based on the same factual matter alleged previously — factual matter that is insufficient to state any plausible claims for relief against Delta. For all of these reasons, and those set forth in Delta's MJP, which is respectfully incorporated herein by reference, Defendant Delta Management Associates, Inc. respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an order granting it a judgment on the pleadings and dismissing Plaintiff Jeffrey Fleischer's First Amended Complaint, with prejudice.
