Frickey v. Concora Credit Inc

Filing 8

MEMORANDUN DECISION & ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by United States District Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (mls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RUSSELL ANDERSON FRICKEY,

Case No. 2:23-cv-00509-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
CONCORA CREDIT INC.,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for
More Definite Statement filed by the Defendant, Concora Credit Inc. Dkt. 4. The
Plaintiff, Russell Anderson Frickey, has not responded. The Court will grant the
Motion and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
In October 2023, Mr. Frickey filed a Complaint against Concora Credit in
the District Court 1 for the First Judicial District of Idaho, County of Kootenai,

1

court.

Specifically, Mr. Frickey filed his Complaint in the small claims department of that

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

alleging violations of “the fair debt practices act,” “the fair debt collection act,”
and “the fair debt reporting act.” Compl., Dkt. 2-1, at 2. Concora Credit removed
the matter to this Court approximately three weeks later. Notice of Removal, Dkt.
1. With respect to Mr. Frickey’s claims for relief, the Complaint states, in full:
AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $3,000.00 (not including filing and service
fees)
DATE CLAIM AROSE: Oct 2023 (month and year)
BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM:
Violation of the fair debt practices act $1000
Violation of the fair debt collection act $1000
Violation of the fair debt reporting act $1000
Compl., Dkt. 2-1, at 2. Concora Credit moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, moves for a more
definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Def.’s Mem., Dkt. 5. After thoroughly
reviewing the briefing, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary to its decision.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” so as to “give
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While a
complaint challenged by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “does not need detailed
factual allegations,” it must set forth “more than labels and conclusions, and a

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555.
All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 571. To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility
standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint
pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short
of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. at 557.
The Supreme Court identified two “working principles” that underlie
Twombly in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). First, the court need not
accept legal conclusions as true which are couched as factual allegations. Id. Rule
8 does not “unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more
than conclusions.” Id. at 678–79. Second, to survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. “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.”

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Id.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Frickey appears to assert that Concora Credit has violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1681x. See Compl., Dkt. 2-1 at 2. To establish a claim
under the FDCPA, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant is a debt collector
as defined under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6), and (2) the defendant failed to comply
with a provision of the FDCPA. Stimpson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 944 F.3d
1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2019). With respect to a claim brought under the FCRA, a
plaintiff must establish that the defendant willfully or negligently failed to comply
with the Act’s requirements. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n & o; Gorman v. Wolpoff &
Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009).
Concora Credit argues that Mr. Frickey’s claims are conclusory and devoid
of any supporting facts. Def.’s Mem., Dkt. 5, at 4–5. The Court agrees. The
Complaint’s bare assertions that Concora Credit violated “the fair debt practices
act,” “the fair debt collection act,” and “the fair debt reporting act” resulting in
$3,000 in damages, do not contain any facts establishing any of the elements of
either cause of action. These assertions fail to meet the pleading standard
established by Rule 8(a)(2) and Twombly because they lack the requisite facts to

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

provide Concora Credit with notice as to the basis of Mr. Frickey’s request for
relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (the purpose of Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading
requirement is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests[.]”) (citation and alteration omitted). Furthermore, Mr.
Frickey has not filed an opposition to Concora Credit’s motion. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for

More Definite Statement (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED.
2.

The Complaint (Dkt. 2-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3.

A separate judgment shall issue.
DATED: February 4, 2024
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5