United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (Def.'s Motion to Dismiss - dkt. no. 7)
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Easy Loans Corporation's ("Easy Loans") Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. no. 7.) The Court has also considered Plaintiff Ramon Izquierdo's ("Plaintiff") opposition and Easy Loans' reply. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
This case arises out of alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The facts that follow are taken from the Complaint. Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation to First USA Bank, N.A. Chase (the "Creditor") for a credit card provided by the Creditor to Plaintiff for family, personal, or household purposes. (Dkt. no. 1 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff defaulted on the debt in June 2006. ( Id. at ¶ 17.) The Creditor sold, assigned, or transferred the debt to Easy Loans for collection. Alternatively, the Creditor employed Easy Loans to collect the debt. ( Id. at ¶ 12.)
On November 12, 2012, Easy Loans sued Plaintiff in Las Vegas Justice Court ("Justice Court Complaint") attempting to collect the debt. ( Id. at ¶ 14.) At the time Easy Loans filed the Justice Court Complaint, Easy Loans knew or should have known that both California and Nevada law time-barred the suit. ( Id. at ¶ 19, 21.) Regardless, Easy Loans brought the suit in an attempt to harass the Plaintiff into repaying a debt he was no longer responsible to pay. ( Id. at ¶ 23.)
On June 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed this suit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., under multiple section of the statute, including § 1692d, § 1692e(2, 5, 7, 10), and § 1692f(1). Plaintiff sought actual and statutory damages under § 1692k(a)(1-2).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
On a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must determine "whether the complaint's factual allegations, together with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for relief." Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) ( citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ( citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
When determining the sufficiency of a claim, "[w]e accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party[; however, this tenet does not apply to]... legal conclusions... cast in the form of factual allegations." Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Therefore, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ( quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) ("A pleading that offers labels and conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'").
Plaintiff alleges that Easy Loans violated the FDCPA by filing a time-barred lawsuit in an attempt to collect an alleged debt. Easy Loans argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the FDCPA.
To state an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) plaintiff is a consumer, (2) defendant is a debt-collector, (3) defendant attempted to collect a consumer debt, and (4) defendant violated a statutory provision in its collection activities. 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Easy Loans does not challenge that plaintiff is a consumer or that Easy Loans attempted to collect a consumer debt. Instead, Easy Loans' arguments focus on two issues: (1) ...