United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Hoang Nguyen's
(“Nguyen”) motion to amend complaint. (ECF No.
24). Defendant Plusfour, Inc.'s (“Plusfour”)
filed a response (ECF No. 25), to which Nguyen replied (ECF
action arises from Plusfour's debt collection practices.
The second proposed amended complaint alleges the following
reported debt in the amount of $132 against Nguyen without
identifying the original creditor. (ECF No. 24 at 10). In
March 2018, Nguyen discovered the debt report and contacted
Plusfour over the phone. Id. at 10-11. Nguyen
requested validation of the debt. Id. Plusfour
informed Nguyen that it would cost $10 to validate the debt
or that Nguyen could receive validation upon paying off the
account. Id. Nguyen did not pay for the validation
service or pay off the account. See id.
September 28, 2018, Nguyen initiated this action, asserting a
single cause of action for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692. Id. On April 26, 2019, the court
granted Plusfour's motion to dismiss without prejudice
and denied Nguyen's motion to amend. (ECF No. 22). The
court also granted Nguyen a second opportunity to file an
amended complaint, which Nguyen submitted and the court now
considers. (ECF Nos. 22, 24). The factual allegations in the
second proposed amended complaint are substantially the same
as the allegations in the original complaint. See
(ECF No. 24).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The United States
Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the
liberal standard district courts must apply when granting
such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as
undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the
amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules
require, be “freely given.”
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Jackson v. Bank of
Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Local
Rule 15-1(a) states that “the moving party shall attach
the proposed amended pleading to any motion seeking leave of
the court to file an amended pleading.” LR 15-1(a).
court will deny Nguyen's motion to amend because
Nguyen's newly amended complaint has failed to plausibly
allege that Plusfour violated the FDCPA.
FDCPA “prohibits debt collectors ‘from making
false or misleading representations and from engaging in
various abusive and unfair practices.'” Donohue
v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 292
(1995)). The FDCPA is a remedial statute that courts construe
liberally in favor of consumers. Id. at 1033-34.
requests leave to file an amended complaint containing
substantially the same factual allegations as the original
complaint. See (ECF No. 24). The only significant
change in the newly amended complaint is that Nguyen
identifies different provisions of the FDCPA that Plusfour
purportedly violated. See id. These provisions are