Benson et al v. Tabor Recovery Group, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
LYNETTE BENSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-44
vs.
TABOR RECOVERY 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. No. 20); (2) EXTENDING THE
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINE; AND (3) SETTING A DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
DEADLINE OF MARCH 31, 2026
Plaintiffs Lynette Benson and Charles Benson, through counsel, bring this civil case
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., against
Defendants Tabor Recovery Group, LLC, Tony Adkins, and Mark Richmond. 	Doc. No. 2.
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint further alleges violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
(“OCSPA”), Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.02, against Defendants as well as an intrusion on seclusion
claim and a civil conspiracy claim. 	Id. at PageID 33-37. 	This case is before the Court on
Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. 	Doc. No. 20.
In response to the motion, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 24), and
Defendant replied (Doc. No. 27). 	Thus, the motion is ripe for review.
I.
Motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) are analyzed under the same
standard as motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 	See Roth v. Guzman, 650 F.3d 603, 605
Case: 3:25-cv-00044-MJN Doc #: 31 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
(6th Cir. 2011). 	For both motions, “all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings
of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving
party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” 	JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget,
510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). 	The Court “construe[s] the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept[s] its allegations as true, and draw[s] all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” 	Royal Truck & Trailer Sales & Serv., Inc. v.
Kraft, 974 F.3d 756, 758 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555,
559 (6th Cir. 2008)). 	However, the Court “need not accept as true legal conclusions or
unwarranted factual inferences.” 	Winget, 510 F.3d at 582–83 (citation omitted) (quotation
omitted).
A complaint will not suffice if it offers only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 	Instead, to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) review, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 	Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 	A
plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 	“Where a complaint pleads facts that
are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility
and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Rule 12(b)(6), like all other Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “should be construed,
administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Case: 3:25-cv-00044-MJN Doc #: 31 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
II.
Having carefully and thoroughly considered the pleadings and briefing in support of,
and in opposition to, Defendants’ motion, and having been advised that they have completed
discovery, along with the procedural posture of this case, the efficient and appropriate way
forward is to consider the parties’ arguments on summary judgment with citations to the
Record. See, e.g., Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 514 (6th Cir. 2021).
III.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 	The Court anticipates reviewing the parties’ arguments on
summary judgment. 	In anticipation that the parties will likely need a continuance of the
dispositive motions deadline, the Court EXTENDS this deadline and SETS a dispositive
motions deadline of March 31, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 26, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00044-MJN Doc #: 31 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>