United States District Court, S.D. California
JORDAN KOHLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff,
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
A. HOUSTON, United States District Judge.
pending before this Court is the motion to dismiss Plaintiff
Jordan Kohler's (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed
by Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC
(“Defendant”). The motion has been fully briefed
by the parties. After a careful review of the Defendant's
motion, this Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss.
filed the instant complaint on October 1, 2015. (See
Doc. #1). Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 15, 2015,
Plaintiff incurred a purported residential rent debt to
Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 26). On or about April 7, 2015,
Plaintiff received an email from Defendant informing
Plaintiff that the rent was due. (Id. at ¶ 29).
Plaintiff alleges that the rent included a $75 late fee.
(Id. at ¶ 30). Plaintiff claims this late fee
is a liquidated damage in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code
§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”) as well as
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ.
Code § 1788, et seq. (“RFDCPA”). (See
asserts a class action complaint seeking damages and
injunctive relief. (Id.) Plaintiff is a resident and
citizen of the State of California. (Compl. ¶13).
Defendant is a corporation incorporated in the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business in South
Carolina. (Id. at ¶14)
filed the instant motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint. (See Doc. # 10). Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion. (See Doc. # 11). Defendant
filed a reply. (See Doc. # 12). The Court took the
matter under submission pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.
moves to dismiss the instant complaint on the grounds that
the complaint fails to state a claim and fails to join a
necessary or indispensable party pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). (See Doc. #10
at 11). In addition, Defendant asserts that the claim should
be dismissed and/or stayed pursuant to the Colorado River
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency
of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729,
732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under Rule
12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory.
Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d
530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); see Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a
court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive issue
of law.”). Alternatively, a complaint may be dismissed
where it presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to
plead essential facts under that theory. Robertson,
749 F.2d at 534. While a plaintiff need not give
“detailed factual allegations, ” he must plead
sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007).
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.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A claim is
facially plausible when the factual allegations permit
“the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. In other words, “the nonconclusory
‘factual content, ' and reasonable inferences from
that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim
entitling the plaintiff to relief. Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court
must assume the truth of all factual allegations and must
construe all inferences from them in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d
890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). However, legal
conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they are
cast in the form of factual allegations. Ileto v. Glock,
Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003); Western
Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.
1981). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court may
consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents
attached to the complaint, documents relied upon but not
attached to the complaint when authenticity is not contested,
and matters of which the Court takes judicial notice. Lee
v. City of Los Angeles, 250 ...