Noel v. PACCAR Financial Corp.

568 F.Supp.3d 558

David J. NOEL, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP., et al., Defendants.

Civil Case No. GLS-18-3936

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division.

Signed October 21, 2021

Stacy Rebecca Pace, Pace Group PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Derick J. Noel, Hilary L. Findley.

Scott Anthony Thomas, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant PACCAR Financial Corp.

David A. Skomba, James Hetzel, Franklin and Prokopik, Brett Anthony Buckwalter, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant Bell & Williams Associates, Inc.

Leslie Paul Machado, Alison C. Duffy, O'Hagan Meyer, Alexandria, VA, D. Patrick Callahan, Pro Hac Vice, O'Hagan Meyer PLLC, Richmond, VA, for Defendant Last Lap Recovery, LLC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gina L. Simms, United States Magistrate Judge

Pending before this Court are the following motions: (1) a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint by Defendant Bell and Williams Associates, Inc. ("B&W"), (ECF No. 77), a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint by Defendant PACCAR Financial Corporation ("PACCAR"), (ECF No. 78), and a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint by Last Lap Recovery, LLC ("Last Lap") (ECF No. 79). The issues have been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86). For the reasons set forth below, B&W's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is DENIED , PACCAR's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is DENIED , and Last Lap's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint is DENIED .

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs¹ Derrick J. Noel and Hillary L. Findley ("Plaintiffs") filed this action in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Prince George's County against PACCAR Financial Corporation alleging a breach of the peace pursuant to Maryland Commercial Code § 9-609(b), breach of contract, conversion, and punitive damages, all in relation to a dispute over a repossessed dump truck. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-2). PACCAR timely removed the matter to this federal court, (ECF No. 1), and filed a Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4). The Honorable George J. Hazel denied PACCAR's Motion to Dismiss on August 20, 2019.² (ECF Nos. 8, 9; Darren Trucking Co. v. Paccar Fin. Corp. , Civ. No. GJH-18-3936, 2019 WL 3945103, at *2-3 (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2019) ).

On October 30, 2019, this matter was referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 14). On January 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a "Letter Regarding Planned Motion to Amend Pleadings." (ECF No. 25). This Court construed Plaintiffs’ letter as a motion to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and granted the same. (ECF No. 28). On February 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint adding Bell & Williams Associates, Inc., ("B&W") as a named defendant. (ECF No. 30). On February 27, 2020, in response to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, PACCAR filed its "Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaim" ("PACCAR's Counterclaim"). (ECF No. 33). On that same day, PACCAR also filed a crossclaim against B&W ("PACCAR's Crossclaim"). (ECF No. 34).³

On March 17, 2020, B&W filed its Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 35), and its Answer to PACCAR's Crossclaim, (ECF No. 36).⁴ Plaintiffs filed their Answer to PACCAR's Counterclaim on March 19, 2020. (ECF No. 38).

On September 25, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a second "Letter Regarding Planned Motion to Amend Pleadings" and a supplemental letter analyzing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). (ECF Nos. 47, 49). In that Letter, Plaintiffs sought permission to file a Second Amended Complaint after receiving B&W's answers to interrogatories, in which B&W stated, "Other than the Plaintiffs, the drivers of the tow truck, Eric George and Denny Ramirez of Last Lap Recovery, LLC will have personal knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ Complaint." (ECF No. 47, p. 1). This Court construed Plaintiffs’ September 25, 2020 letter as a second motion to amend the complaint and granted the same. (ECF No. 50).

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on October 30, 2020, adding Last Lap Recovery, LLC, ("Last Lap") as a named defendant. (ECF No. 51). PACCAR filed its amended answer on November 12, 2020. (ECF No. 55). On November 17, 2020, B&W filed a pre-motion submission notifying the Court of its intent to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for a more definite statement. (ECF No. 58). Shortly thereafter, on November 24, 2020, Last Lap filed a pre-motion submission notifying the Court of its intent to join B&W's proposed motion. (ECF No. 62). On December 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a pre-motion submission in response to B&W's and Last Lap's filings. (ECF No. 66). This Court partially construed Plaintiffs’ response as a request to file a third amended complaint and granted the same. (ECF No. 67).

On January 4, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint against all three Defendants. (ECF No. 68). Plaintiffs allege the following counts in the Third Amended Complaint: Count I, violation of UCC Article 9, against all Defendants; Count II, breach of contract, against PACCAR; and Count III, conversion, against all Defendants. (See ECF No. 68, ¶¶ 17-22). On January 15, 2021, B&W filed another pre-motion submission notifying the Court of its intent to file a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 70). That same day, PACCAR also filed a pre-motion submission notifying the Court of its intent to join B&W's proposed motion. (ECF No. 71). On January 18, 2021, Last Lap filed its second pre-motion submission notifying the Court of its intent to join B&W's proposed motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 72).

On February 10, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Status Report notifying the Court that discovery had yet to be completed. (ECF No. 75, p. 1). Of note, the JSR reflects that PACCAR and B&W had responded to discovery requests from the Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 75, pp. 1-2). In addition, the JSR reflects that Last Lap declined to respond to the discovery propounded by Plaintiffs, asserting that it need not respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests "until the viability of the Third Amended Complaint is [d]etermined." (ECF No. 75, p. 2).

All three Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on March 1, 2021. (ECF Nos. 77, 78, 79).

II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT⁵

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint alleges that on July 27, 2017, Plaintiffs contracted with PACCAR to purchase a dump truck. (ECF No. 68, ¶ 4). Plaintiffs made a down payment of $20,500 and made consistent payments on the balance of $184,601.34. (Id. , ¶¶ 5-6). In late August 2018, Plaintiffs and one of PACCAR's representatives became involved in a dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ payments. (Id. , ¶ 7). On Tuesday, September 25, 2018, one of PACCAR's representatives called Plaintiffs to inquire about their next payment. (Id. , ¶ 8). The following day, Plaintiffs returned the call and informed PACCAR that payment was forthcoming. (Id. , ¶ 9). One of PACCAR's representatives agreed to Plaintiffs terms as long as payment was received by that upcoming Friday. (Id. ).

The following day, at approximately 9:30 p.m. on September 27, 2018, an individual in a tow truck arrived at Plaintiff Noel's personal residence and informed Noel that he was there to repossess the dump truck due to Plaintiffs’ non-payment. (Id. , ¶ 10). The dump truck was "parked alongside [Noel's] residence and behind a gate." (Id. , ¶ 11). Noel, "objected loudly" to the repossession and the disagreement between Noel and the individual intensified until the police were called. (Id. , ¶¶ 12-13). Upon arrival, the police ordered Noel to permit the repossession. (Id. , ¶ 14). The following day, when Plaintiffs pressed PACCAR to explain why the repossession occurred, PACCAR cited the earlier disagreement with Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 15). On October 16, 2018, PACCAR sold the dump truck in a private sale. (Id. , ¶ 16).

Count I of the Third Amended Complaint alleges that "because the repossession clearly breached the peace, and because PACCAR contracted with B&W and Bell & Williams subcontracted with Last Lap to execute such repossession, the Defendants jointly violated [Maryland Commercial Code § 9-609(b)] and are therefore jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff[s] for such violation." (Id. , ¶ 18).

Count II alleges that "PACCAR's actions, in repossessing the vehicle, materially breached the valid contract between Plaintiffs and PACCAR and caused injury to Plaintiffs as a result." (Id. , ¶ 20).

Count III alleges that "Defendants, in repossessing the subject vehicle, exercised wrongful dominion over the Plaintiffs’ personal property in denial of Plaintiffs’ rights to said property, and are therefore jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for conversion." (Id. , ¶ 22).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)

A defendant who files a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is arguing that even if all of the facts alleged by the plaintiff are accepted as true, the plaintiff's complaint still fails, as a matter of law, "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Baltimore Scrap Corp. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co. , 388 F. Supp. 3d 574, 584 (D. Md. 2019). Thus, when evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint and must draw all reasonable inferences from these facts in favor of the plaintiff." Retfalvi v. United States , 930 F.3d 600, 605 (4th Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain facts sufficient to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).

Federal Rule of Civil...