United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
CHRISTINE E. MARFUT, Plaintiff,
THE GARDENS OF GULF COVE POA, INC., JOHN ANDERSON, BREEN LUCILLE, JACK ARLINGHAUS, HERMAN DAHL, FRED STREIF, NAJMY THOMPSON PL, STEPHEN W. THOMPSON, JOSEPH NAJMY, LOUIS NAJMY, RICHARD WELLER, RANDOLF L. SMITH and MICHAEL J. SMITH, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Najmy
Thompson, P.L., Stephen W. Thompson, Joseph Najmy, Louis
Najmy, Richard Weller, Randolph L. Smith, and Michael J.
Smith's (collectively “Najmy Defendants”)
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 65), and
Defendants The Gardens of Gulf Cove Property Owner's
Association, Inc., Lucille Breen, Herman Dahl, Jack
Arlinghaus, Fred Streif, and John Anderson's
(collectively “Association Defendants”) Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 66). Pro se
Plaintiff Christine E. Marfut has filed Responses in
Opposition. (Docs. 67; 69). Marfut has also filed a
“Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint” (Doc. 70) that the Court construes
as an additional response. These matters are ripe for review.
case stems from an alleged scheme to defraud Marfut of her
home. (Doc. 64). Marfut was a member of a property
owner's association, The Gardens of Gulf Cove Property
Owner's Association, Inc. (Doc. 64 at 3). Marfut received
mailings from The Gardens of Gulf Cove and its collection
agent, Najmy Thompson P.L., about unpaid annual assessments
and other fines. (Doc. 64 at 3-7). Marfut maintains that she
not only paid her annual assessment but that the other fines
were fabricated. (Doc. 64 at ¶¶ 6, 22). These
events occurred over several years, finally coming to a head
when Najmy Thompson P.L. mailed a letter to Marfut seeking
$30, 000 in liens and attorney's fees and threatening to
foreclose on Marfut's home if she did not pay. This
string of events led to a state foreclosure action against
Marfut. (Doc. 64 at ¶ 34).
response, Marfut sued. The Court dismissed Marfut's first
complaint as a shotgun pleading but granted her leave to
amend. (Doc. 56). Marfut then filed an Amended Complaint
alleging mail fraud, honest services fraud, and violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
(Doc. 64). Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. (Docs. 65; 66).
survive a motion to dismiss, a pleading must contain
sufficient factual material to raise a claim for relief above
the speculative level. See Bell A. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). “[D]etailed
factual allegations” are not required, but a plaintiff
must allege more than “an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009)
(internal quotations omitted). Reviewing courts must accept
all factual allegations as true but need not accept legal
conclusions as true. See id. at 678. A court must
identify the factual allegations, assume their veracity, and
then determine whether the facts give rise to a plausible
claim for relief. See id. at 679.
must also consider a plaintiff's pro se status.
If a plaintiff is pro se, she is entitled to
leniency, and courts will construe a pro se pleading
liberally. See Miller v. Bank of New York
Mellon, 228 F.Supp.3d 1287, 1290 (M.D. Fla. 2017). But
“pro se complaints . . . must [still] comply
with the procedural rules that govern pleadings.”
Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecomm. Inc., 146 F.
App'x. 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005). Against that backdrop,
the Court turns to Defendants' arguments for dismissing
the Amended Complaint.
alleges three separate causes of action: (1) mail fraud; (2)
honest services fraud; and (3) violations of the FDCPA. Yet
problems still exist with these claims.
Mail Fraud and Honest Services Fraud
stated in the Court's prior order, there are no private
causes of action for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341
or honest services fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 as pled
by Marfut. (Doc. 56 at 6 n.5); see also Marfut
v. City of N. Port, Fla., 8:08-CV-2006-T- 27EAJ, 2009 WL
790111, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2009).Thus,
Marfut's mail fraud and honest services fraud claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
FDCPA claim contains one paragraph alleging that Defendant
Stephen Thompson claimed a $250 fee for an April 3, 2012
collection letter. And in the general fact section, Marfut
alleges that she received a second collection letter on May
24, 2012, a “Photo Notice” on August 20, 2014, an
invoice on August 25, 2014, and a “extortionist
letter” on March 11, 2016. (Doc. 64 ...