Miami-Dade Clerk Wins Dismissal of Lawsuit Over 40 Percent Collection Fee
The lawsuit alleged the clerk acted improperly by automatically imposing the fees before any debt collection services were performed.
January 02, 2018 at 04:53 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge dismissed a putative class action against Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts Harvey Ruvin and a debt collector over the imposition of 40 percent collection fees on penalties such as traffic ticket fines.
Plaintiff Natacha Guerra alleged the clerk acted improperly by automatically charging her a $163.20 fee even though the collections company hadn't yet performed any work to collect a late payment on her $392 traffic ticket. A $16 late fee was also assessed, and Guerra said she paid the full $571.20 that day, before any collection services were needed.
“The relative injustice of the automatic imposition of a massive 40 percent unlawful, unearned collection fee is evident,” claimed the lawsuit against Ruvin and Texas-based debt collector Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson. “For comparison, Florida law defines as usurious the payment of interest exceeding 18 percent per annum, and interest exceeding 25 percent per annum is criminal usury.”
U.S. District Chief Judge K. Michael Moore dismissed the lawsuit on Tuesday for failure to state a claim, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the law requires collections companies to perform work before a fee can be assessed.
“Even construing the plain language of the statute in [the] plaintiff's favor, the statute does not speak about the timing of the imposition of the collection fee,” Moore ruled. “Rather it vests the clerk of court with discretion to assess a collection fee of up to 40 percent of the amount otherwise owed per each unpaid fine. That is precisely what the clerk did in this instance.”
Aventura solo practitioner Bret Lusskin, who filed the lawsuit, declined to comment Tuesday because the order had just come down.
The lawsuit claimed millions of dollars in damages to those assessed penalties in Miami-Dade court. The plaintiff's eight claims included unjust enrichment, and violations of due process and the federal and state constitutional clauses forbidding excessive fines.
“Because the court finds that the purpose of collection fee is remedial instead of punitive, the collection fee does not fall within the scope of the excessive fines clauses of the Constitution or the Florida Constitution,” Moore ruled.
Ruvin's attorney, Scott Wagner of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod in Miami, represents the clerk's office in this litigation and other federal matters. He said lawsuits over court fees are not common, and the clerk never viewed this one as having any merit.
“The most challenging thing was … having to deal with the time and expense of responding to a complaint that was not meritorious,” he said.
Linebarger Goggan was represented by Miami attorney Gavin White of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, who also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida’s Civil Procedure Rules: Attorneys Foresee More Settlements Amid Time Challenges
3 minute readHolland & Knight Promotes 42 Lawyers to Partner, Prioritizing Corporate Practices
3 minute readData Breach Lawsuit Against Byte Federal Among 1,500 Targeting Companies in 2024
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250