Samano v. LVNV Funding, LLC

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [7] EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [8] 9 LUIS SAMANO, Case No. 1:21-cv-01692-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 11 v. D ISMISS 12 (Doc. 35) LVNV FUNDING, LLC, [13] Defendant. 14 _____________________________________/ [16] I. INTRODUCTION [17] 18 The matter before the Court is Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss 19 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (the “Motion”).1 (Doc. 35.) On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff 20 Luis Samano filed his opposition, (Doc. 36), and Defendant filed its reply on August 25, 2022 (Doc. 21 37). 22 The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and finds the matter suitable for decision without 23 oral argument. The hearing set for September 7, 2022, will therefore be vacated. 24 Having considered the briefing, and for the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion will 25 be denied. 26 /// [1] A. Factual Background [2] 3 This case concerns a consumer debt collector that Plaintiff alleges transmitted false 4 information about him to credit reporting agencies. On or about July 28, 2021, Plaintiff sent 5 Defendant, an acquirer and collector of delinquent consumer debts, a letter indicating that he was 6 no longer disputing his accounts and asked Defendant to report them as such to various credit 7 reporting agencies. (Doc. 34 ¶¶ 17–18.) Plaintiff received confirmation from the U.S. Postal 8 Service that Defendant had received his letter on or about August 9, 2021. (Id. ¶ 19.) 9 On or about September 9, 2021, after having received Plaintiff’s letter, Defendant reported 10 to Transunion and to Equifax, on two occasions each, that Plaintiff disputed his accounts. (Doc. 34 11 ¶ 20.) On information and belief, Defendant has continued from that time up through the present to 12 report these accounts as disputed by Plaintiff to at least two credit reporting agencies twice per 13 month. (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges that by continuing to report the account as disputed, Defendant 14 prevented Plaintiff from obtaining a mortgage and thus attempting to induce Plaintiff to pay the 15 account in order to have the dispute notation removed when the account status is updated after 16 payment is made. (Id. ¶ 23.) 17 B. Procedural Background 18 Plaintiff filed his original complaint for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 19 (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Act (“Rosenthal Act”), [20] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et. seq., and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act 21 (“CCRAA”), California Civil Code §§ 1785 et seq. (Doc. 1.) On March 21, 2022, Defendant filed 22 a motion under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending that 23 Plaintiff had not alleged a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing and failed to state claims 24 under the FDCPA, Rosenthal Act, and CCRAA. (Doc. 16.) The Court granted the motion in part 25 on April 19, 2022, dismissing without leave to amend Plaintiff’s claims under the Rosenthal Act 26 and the CCRAA, and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend Plaintiff’s Article III 27 standing allegations and to allege conduct “in connection with the collection of any debt” pursuant 28 to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. (Doc. 20.) 1 Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2022. (Doc. 25.) On June 1, 2 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure, asserting that Plaintiff has again failed to allege conduct “in connection with the 4 collection of any debt” sufficient to state a claim under the FDCPA. (Doc. 27.) The Court granted 5 the motion on June 28, 2022, with “one last opportunity” to amend . (Doc. 33.) 6 On July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, the operative complaint.2 7 (Doc. 34.) Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on August 3, 8 2022, raising the same grounds for dismissal as those raised in his prior motion. (See Doc. 35.) 9 III. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”) tests the 11 legal sufficiency of a claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or 12 the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. 13 Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240 , 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In 14 resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court's review is generally limited to the “allegations 15 contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject to 16 judicial notice.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025 , 1030–31 (9th Cir. 17 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts may not supply essential elements 18 not initially pled, Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014), and “‘conclusory 19 allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for 20 failure to state a claim,’” Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 21 2010) (quoting Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996)). 22 To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 23 as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 24 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); 25 Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242 ; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. [26] 27 2 Defendant points out that the Third Amended Complaint was filed nine days late. (See Doc. 35 at 4.) Plaintiff does not dispute that his filing was untimely, and blames a “calendaring error.” (Doc. 36 at 7–8.) In the absence of any 28 apparent prejudice, which Defendant has not shown, the Court shall permit the late filing. Plaintiff is cautioned that any 1 2009). The Court must accept the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable 2 inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992 , 998 3 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Huynh v. Chase Manhattan 4 Bank, 465 F.3d 992 , 996–97 (9th Cir. 2006); Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151 , 1153 5 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 In practice, “a complaint . . . must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting 7 all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.” Twombly, [8] 550 U.S. at 562 . To the extent that the pleadings can be cured by the allegation of additional facts, 9 the plaintiff should be afforded leave to amend. Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection 10 Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242 , 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). 11 IV. DISCUSSION 12 The purposes of the FDCPA are “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt 13 collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection 14 practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect 15 consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692 . In addition, it is designed “to provide 16 information that helps consumers to choose intelligently” in dealing with their debts. Donohue v. 17 Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Hahn v. Triumph P’ships LLC, [18] 557 F.3d 755, 758 (7th Cir. 2009)). If a violation occurs, “the FDCPA is a strict liability statute that 19 makes debt collectors liable for violations that are not knowing or intentional.” Id. at 1030. 20 Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e when it “willfully communicated 21 credit information which was known or which should have been known to be false, to wit: that 22 Plaintiffs [sic] accounts were disputed when, in fact, they were not.” (Doc. 34 ¶ 29.) Title 15 U.S.C. 23 § 1692e prohibits debt collectors from “using false, deceptive, and misleading representation or 24 means in connection with the collection of a debt,” and Plaintiff’s allegation tracks the language of 25 § 1692e(8), which provides that a debt collector violates the FDCPA by “[c]ommunicating or 26 threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be 27 known to be false.” Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant made a 28 misrepresentation “in connection with the collection of his debt.” (Doc. 35 at 6–9.) 1 While neither the FDCPA nor the Ninth Circuit have defined the phrase “in connection with 2 the collection of any debt” under § 1692e, a generally accepted definition derived from other Circuit 3 Courts of Appeals is that “for communication to be in connection with the collection of a debt, an 4 animating purpose of the communication must be to induce payment by the debtor.” Carter v. 5 Richland Holdings, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02967-RFB-VCF, 2019 WL 4773806 , at *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 6 30, 2019) (citing Grden v. Leikin Ingber & Winters PC, 643 F.3d 169, 173 (6th Cir. 2011)); see also 7 McIvor, 773 F.3d at 914; Gburek v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 614 F.3d 380 , 385–86 (7th Cir. 2010). 8 Plaintiff alleges in his Third Amended Complaint that he 9 was attempting to obtain a mortgage loan in late spring/early summer of 2021, and was working with a mortgage lender to purchase a new home. Plaintiff’s lender 10 looked at his credit and saw the “disputed” notation on the account at issue, and informed Plaintiff that he would not be able to obtain a mortgage loan because there [11] was a disputed debt on his credit report. Because of this, Plaintiff sent a letter to 12 Defendant dated July 28, 2021, asking that Defendant remove the dispute notation because Plaintiff was no longer disputing the account(s) at issue. Defendant did 13 not remove the dispute notation, and Plaintiff was unable to obtain a mortgage loan. 14 (Doc. 34 ¶ 24.) According to Plaintiff, “by continuing to report the account as disputed,” Defendant 15 is “attempting to induce Plaintiff to pay the account in order to have the dispute notation removed” 16 so that he can obtain a mortgage loan. (Id. ¶ 23.) 17 Taking these allegations as true, as the Court must at this stage of the proceedings, the Court 18 finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that an “animating purpose” of Defendant’s continued 19 reporting of his account as “disputed” was to induce payment of his debt so that he would remove 20 the barrier to his obtaining a mortgage. Defendant criticizes Plaintiff’s “underlying theory of 21 liability” (Doc. 35 at 8; see also Doc. 37 at 6–7), but Plaintiff’s allegations give rise to a claim that 22 is at least “plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ). 23 The unpublished case of Roth v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, on which Defendant 24 relies, does not alter the Court’s analysis. That case—which concerned a claim brought under § 25 1692e(2)(A), not § 1692e(8)—observed, in dictum, that the FDCPA does not impose a duty on debt 26 collectors to update the dispute status of each debt it has reported. See Roth, No. 2:16-CV-04325 27 JWS, 2017 WL 2181758 , at *2 (D. Ariz. May 17, 2017) (citing Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., 519 F.3d 28 416, 418 (8th Cir. 2008)). This Court does not disagree and, in fact, addressed this issue in a prior 1 order in this case. (See Doc. 20 at 8 (“[T]here appears no affirmative duty by a debt collector to 2 report a debt to the credit reporting agencies as disputed (or no longer disputed) . . . .) (citing 3 Kozlowski v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 1:18-cv-00131-DAD-EPG, 2018 WL 5099765 , at *5 (E.D. Cal. 4 Oct. 18, 2018).) 5 This Court went on, however, to note, “[I]f the debt collector elects to communicate credit 6 information about a consumer, its communication must not be false, deceptive, or misleading.” 7 (Doc. 20 at 8 (citing Kozlowski, 2018 WL 5099765 , at *5, and quoting Wilhelm., 519 F.3d at 418, 8 (internal citations omitted).) This is the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations in this case: Defendant 9 violated the FDCPA by communicating false credit reporting information to the credit reporting 10 agencies and continuing to report his accounts as disputed even though he had withdrawn his 11 dispute. (See Doc. 34 ¶¶ 29.) These allegations stand in stark contrast to Roth, where there was “no 12 allegation regarding any communication between [the defendant] and [the credit reporting agency] 13 or the substance of any such communication” contained in the complaint. Roth, 2017 WL 2181758 , 14 at *2. 15 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged conduct “in 17 connection with the collection of any debt” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Accordingly, 18 Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) is DENIED. The hearing on the Motion, currently set for 19 September 7, 2022, is VACATED. [20] IT IS SO ORDERED. [21] 22 Dated: August 31, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE