Policy Studies Moves to Dismiss Federal Suit
Wednesday / October 17, 2007
A noncustodial parent sued a private child support
collection company after the Tennessee Supreme Court
released him from jail.
In June, we reported on a lawsuit filed in
federal district court in Nashville, Tennessee,
by a man whose criminal nonsupport conviction
was overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The
plaintiff, Bryan Cottingham, sued a Colorado
company called Policy Studies, Inc. In 2002, the
Tennessee Department of Human Resources
outsourced its child support collection work to
Policy Studies . A Policy Studies attorney then
began pursing Mr. Cottingham to collect child
support arrearages.
The case is set for trial on July 15, 2008. But the case may never be tried. It is common in all sorts of lawsuits for the defendant to file a motion to dismiss. There is a motion to dismiss pending in this case. If that motion is granted, then Mr. Cottingham is out of court.
Mr. Cottingham's complaint alleges that Policy Studies is an arm of the State of Tennessee. That's one of the bases for federal court jurisdiction over his lawsuit - he says that Policy Studies violated his civil rights.
When a defendant moves a court to dismiss a lawsuit, the defendant must accept, for purposes of that motion only, every allegation in the lawsuit as true. Policy Studies took advantage of this rule by admitting, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, that it is an arm of the State of Tennessee. According to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, states are immune from suits brought against them if the plaintiff seeks money damages. Because Mr. Cottingham says that Policy Studies is an arm of the state, then Policy Studies claims that it should be immune, too.
Mr. Cottingham's response to the motion isn't due until November 12, 2007. We'll continue to monitor the case.
The case is set for trial on July 15, 2008. But the case may never be tried. It is common in all sorts of lawsuits for the defendant to file a motion to dismiss. There is a motion to dismiss pending in this case. If that motion is granted, then Mr. Cottingham is out of court.
Mr. Cottingham's complaint alleges that Policy Studies is an arm of the State of Tennessee. That's one of the bases for federal court jurisdiction over his lawsuit - he says that Policy Studies violated his civil rights.
When a defendant moves a court to dismiss a lawsuit, the defendant must accept, for purposes of that motion only, every allegation in the lawsuit as true. Policy Studies took advantage of this rule by admitting, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, that it is an arm of the State of Tennessee. According to the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, states are immune from suits brought against them if the plaintiff seeks money damages. Because Mr. Cottingham says that Policy Studies is an arm of the state, then Policy Studies claims that it should be immune, too.
Mr. Cottingham's response to the motion isn't due until November 12, 2007. We'll continue to monitor the case.
|
