KANSAS CITY — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the Dikeland Sewer District violated federal debt-collection laws while attempting to collect unpaid sewer charges, finding that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that the sewer district was a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
U.S. District Judge Greg Kays issued the order September 24 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, granting Dikeland Sewer District’s motion to dismiss.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s sole federal claim, brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, with prejudice. The plaintiff’s three remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice after the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.
The lawsuit was filed Dec. 9, 2025, by Kimberly Robinson, who represented herself in the case.
According to the amended complaint, Robinson alleged that Dikeland is a sewer utility operating in Missouri and that she fell behind on sewer payments after losing her job in 2019.
She alleged that the district subsequently stopped billing her, concealed the actual balance and imposed 5% compound interest without a written agreement or prior disclosure. She also alleged that Dikeland imposed disconnection and reconnection fees, including a $764.04 disconnection fee, that were not disclosed in the service contract or otherwise agreed to by her.
Robinson further alleged that the sewer district mailed billing statements by postcard, exposing her alleged debt to the public, and disclosed the debt to neighbors and her realtor. She also alleged that Dikeland recorded a lien based on disputed charges, threatened foreclosure, threatened to have her water service disconnected and represented that laws prohibited her from bringing water onto her property for use.
Robinson alleged that after her sewer service was disconnected over disputed charges, she was told water service could not be provided to a property without functional sewer service, leaving her without running water.
Her federal claim alleged that Dikeland engaged in debt-collection activity through coercive measures and therefore fell within the FDCPA’s definition of a debt collector. Her other claims alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, slander of title and unjust enrichment.
The court, however, found that Robinson had not plausibly alleged that Dikeland was a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA. The court explained that a plaintiff seeking to establish an FDCPA violation must allege that the plaintiff is a consumer, the defendant is a debt collector, the defendant attempted to collect a debt and the defendant violated the FDCPA.
The court determined Robinson’s claim failed at the second requirement.
Under the FDCPA, the court noted, a debt collector includes a person whose principal business purpose is collecting debts or someone who regularly collects debts owed to another. A creditor, by contrast, is someone to whom a debt is owed.
The court said a creditor can fall within the debt-collector definition when, while collecting its own debts, it uses a name other than its own that indicates a third party is attempting to collect the debt.
The court found that Robinson’s allegations described Dikeland as a creditor because the sewer district provided her sewer service, she fell behind on payments and the district pursued the resulting balance.
Robinson did not allege that Dikeland used another name to collect the debt, and the communications attached to her amended complaint displayed Dikeland’s own name. The court also noted that Robinson alleged Dikeland was a sewer district rather than a debt-collection business.
The judge also rejected Robinson’s argument that discovery might reveal information about Dikeland’s billing arrangements, fees, collection practices and relationships with third parties that could establish its status under the FDCPA.
The court stated that discovery does not substitute for the requirement that a complaint contain sufficient factual allegations supporting a claim.
The dismissal with prejudice was based in part on the court’s finding that this was Robinson’s third attempt to plead an FDCPA claim. The court concluded that further amendment would be futile.
Robinson had previously sued Dikeland over the same sewer account in 2020 under the name Ix Kelem Lum’a. That case was dismissed in January 2021 after the court determined she had not adequately alleged that Dikeland was a debt collector and after she did not file an amended complaint by the deadline provided by the court.
Because the FDCPA claim was the only federal claim in the 2025 case, Judge Kays declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s remaining Missouri claims. The court said the case remained in its initial stages and that the relevant considerations favored declining jurisdiction. Those state-law claims were therefore dismissed without prejudice.
The court’s final order granted Dikeland’s motion to dismiss, dismissed Count I with prejudice, dismissed Counts II through IV without prejudice under federal law governing supplemental jurisdiction, and denied as moot Dikeland’s alternative request for a more definite statement.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division case number: 4:25-cv-00955
