Knutson v. Reply!, Inc

Filing 25

ORDER Denying Defendant's 20 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant shall file an answer to the SAC on or before May 4, 2011. The April 18, 2011 hearing date is vacated. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 4/13/2011. (knh)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ERIK KNUTSON,

10

CASE NO. 10cv1267 BEN (WMc)
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

11
12

[Docket No. 20]

REPLY!, INC.,
Defendant.

13
14
15

Defendant Reply, Inc. has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

16

Because Plaintiff has cured the pleading deficiency identified in the Court’s prior order, Defendant’s

17

motion to dismiss is DENIED.

18

BACKGROUND

19

The Court detailed the factual allegations of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

20

in detail in the Court’s prior order. (Court’s January 26, 2011 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion

21

to Dismiss 1-2.) Only Plaintiff’s additional allegations, intended to cure the pleading deficiency

22

identified in the Court’s prior order, are included here.

23

The SAC includes additional allegations addressing Defendant’s use of an automatic

24

telephone dialing system. Plaintiff alleges that a particular number displayed when Plaintiff received

25

calls and that when Plaintiff attempted to call the number, it did not ring and was automatically

26

terminated within moments of Plaintiff placing the call. Plaintiff also alleges that when he received

27

the calls, he inquired as to who was calling and received no response. After approximately five

28

seconds, he could hear the line click over to another party.
-1-

10cv1267

1

MOTION TO DISMISS

2

Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227

3

et seq., (“TCPA”). The TCPA prohibits making a call, other than for emergency purposes or with

4

consent, to a cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. The only deficiency in

5

Plaintiff’s FAC was his failure to plead facts supporting his conclusory assertion that Defendant used

6

an automatic dialing system as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).

7

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate if, taking all factual

8

allegations as true, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief on its face. Bell Atl. Corp.

9

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-57 (2007). The plausibility standard means that the complaint must

10

state “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of” the

11

matter complained of. Id. at 556.

12

In reviewing Plaintiff’s FAC, the Court noted the difficulty a plaintiff faces in knowing the

13

type of calling system used without the benefit of discovery and indicated that Plaintiff could rely on

14

allegations about the details of the call from which the Court could infer the use of an automatic

15

dialing system. (Court’s January 26, 2011 Order relying on Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist.

16

LEXIS 137257 at *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2010)).

17

Plaintiff’s additional allegations concerning the details of the calls are sufficient to “raise a

18

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the matter” complained of. Bell Atl.

19

Corp., 550 U.S. at 556.

20
21

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendant shall file an answer to the SAC on

22

or before May 4, 2011. The April 18, 2011 hearing date is vacated.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

DATED: April 13, 2011

26
27

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge

28
-2-

10cv1267