Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Patton v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 20, 2017

RUSSELL PATTON, Plaintiff(s),
v.
FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC, Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff Russell Patton filed a response (ECF No. 26), to which defendant replied (ECF No. 27).

         I. Facts

         The instant action arises from alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

         Plaintiff allegedly opened a Capital One credit card account and accumulated about $500.00 dollars in debt. (ECF No. 20 at 5). Subsequently, Midland Funding LLC/Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Midland”) retained defendant to collect plaintiff's debt. (ECF No. 20 at 5- 6). On February 5, 2016, defendant sent plaintiff a collection letter attempting to collect the debt. (ECF No. 20 at 5).

         Plaintiff alleges that the alleged debt does not belong to him, he did not incur the charges underlying the debt, and he did not sign a contract creating the alleged debt. (ECF No. 20 at 7).

         On November 20, 2016, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint (ECF No. 1), which he later amended with leave of court on May 4, 2017 (ECF No. 20). In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges one cause of action pursuant to the FDCPA. (ECF No. 20).

         In the instant motion, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 22).

         II. Legal Standard

         A court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

         “Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

         In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. at 678.

         Second, the court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678.

         Where the complaint does not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has “alleged-but not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When the allegations in a complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, plaintiff's claim must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

         The Ninth Circuit addressed post-Iqbal pleading standards in Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.