The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING Defendant's motion to dismiss Pending before the Court is Defendant Professional Collection Consultants' ("Defendant") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Guillermo Lopez's ("Plaintiff") complaint. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers, the Court GRANTS the motion.
On April 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for unlawful debt collection practices. See Dkt. #1. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on June 3, 2011. See Dkt. #5. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant began placing collection calls to Plaintiff in January 2010 for a debt that Defendant claimed was owed to AT&T. FAC ¶¶ 11, 12, 15. Defendant informed Plaintiff that he had co-signed an AT&T contract with Maria Elena Lopez.
¶¶ 15, 16. Defendant made "up to three  collection calls five  times per week" for some unidentified period of time. Id. ¶ 12. At some point, Plaintiff stated he did not know Maria Elena Lopez, has never had a contract with AT&T, did not owe any debt to AT&T, and did not want to receive any more collection calls. Id. ¶¶ 13, 16. Plaintiff alleges Defendant's conduct violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq. Plaintiff asks for statutory damages under both acts, as well as costs and attorney's fees. FAC ¶¶ 20, 21, 25, 26. On August 22, 2011, Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC on the ground that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Dkt. #15.
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may move to dismiss a cause of action if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), courts should be mindful that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require only that the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint that "offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, (2007)). Rather, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to support a plausible claim to relief. See id.
In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must engage in a two-step analysis. See at 1950. First, the court must accept as true all non-conclusory, factual allegations made in the complaint. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993). Based upon these allegations, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in ...