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.

Boon v. Professional Collection Consultants

United States District Court, S.D. California

August 1, 2013

MARK C. BOON, Plaintiff,
v.
PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION CONSULTANTS, Defendant

For Mark C. Boon, Plaintiff: Patric Alexander Lester, LEAD ATTORNEY, Patric Lester & Associates, San Diego, CA; Scott M. Grace, Luftman Heck & Associates LLP, San Diego, CA.

For Professional Collection Consultants, Defendant: Greg Lawrence, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Clark Garen, Culver City, CA.

OPINION

MARILYN L. HUFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Page 1130

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On July 5, 2013, Defendant Professional Collection Consultants (" Defendant" or " PCC" ) filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 13.) On July 21, 2013, Plaintiff Mark C. Boon (" Plaintiff" or " Boon" ) filed his opposition. (Doc. No. 14.) On July 26, 2013, Defendant filed its reply in support of the motion. (Doc. No. 15.) On July 30, 2013, the Court vacated the hearing and submitted the matter on the papers pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). (Doc. No. 16.) For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss the complaint.

Background

On February 6, 2012, Defendant PCC filed a lawsuit in California state court against Plaintiff (the " state action" ) to collect a debt. (Doc. No. 11 (" FAC" ) ¶ 8.) In that case, PCC alleged Plaintiff defaulted on an account with Chase Bank USA, NA (" Chase" ), and that Chase had subsequently assigned the claim to PCC. (Id. ¶ ¶ 8, 10, 11.) Plaintiff asserts the statute of limitations had run on Plaintiff's debt by the time PCC filed suit. (Id. ¶ ¶ 13-18.) On October 18, 2012, PCC voluntarily dismissed the case against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 19.)

On June 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in this Court against Defendant, alleging causes of action under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), 15 U.S.C. § § 1692 et seq., and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" Rosenthal Act" or " RFDCPA" ), Cal. Civ. Code § § 1788, et seq. Plaintiff alleges PCC brought the state action after the statute of limitations on Plaintiff's debt had run, and that the lawsuit therefore constituted improper debt collection in violation of the FDCPA and RFDCPA. Defendant does not concede the statute of limitations issue, and moves to dismiss the lawsuit.

Discussion

I. Legal Standard on a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A complaint generally must satisfy only the minimal notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) to evade dismissal under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading stating a claim for relief contain " a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). " While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A complaint does not " suffice if it

Page 1131

tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting id. at 557). " Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-36 (3d ed. 2004)). " To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Hartmann v. Cal. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). " Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a ...


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.