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.

Nguyen v. Plusfour, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 26, 2019

HOANG NGUYEN, Plaintiffs,
v.
PLUSFOUR, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently 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 No. 26).

         I. Facts

         This action arises from Plusfour's debt collection practices. The second proposed amended complaint alleges the following facts:

         Plusfour 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.

         On 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         Federal 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 explained:

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).

         Further, 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).

         III. Discussion

         The court will deny Nguyen's motion to amend because Nguyen's newly amended complaint has failed to plausibly allege that Plusfour violated the FDCPA.

         The 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.

         Nguyen 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 ...


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.