Carol Oney v. PennyMac Mortgage Investment

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01525-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999898127]. [15-2585]

Appeal: 15-2585

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/27/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2585

CAROL JEAN ONEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDINGS I, LLC, other,
PennyMac Holdings LLC, other, PennyMac Loan Servicing, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-01525-JFM)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

July 27, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

April T. Ademiluyi, LAW OFFICE OF APRIL T. ADEMILUYI, Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellant. Edward W. Chang, BLANK ROME LLP,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; James R. Billings-Kang, BLANK ROME
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2585

Doc: 34

Filed: 07/27/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

Oney

the

PER CURIAM:
Carol

Jean

appeals

district

court’s

order

dismissing her second amended complaint asserting a claim under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p
(2012), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
a

district

court’s

dismissal

under

Rule

We review de novo

12(b)(6),

accepting

factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all
reasonable

inferences

Kensington

Volunteer

in

Fire

462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012).

favor
Dep’t v.

of

the

nonmoving

Montgomery

Cty.,

party.

684

F.3d

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient “facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
reviewed

the

record

and

conclude

committed no reversible error.
court’s order.

that

Bell Atl.

We have thoroughly
the

district

court

We therefore affirm the district

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2