Hardy v. Nagle & Zaller, P.C.

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 12/6/13. (c/m 12/6/13 am2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

LATRICIA HARDY
v.
NAGLE & ZALLER, P.C.
Defendant

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civ. No.:

PJM 13-1461

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff LaTricia Hardy, proceeding pro se, has brought this action, alleging that
Defendant Nagle & Zaller, P.C. (“Nagle”) collected debts without a proper license and violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by harassing her, failing to give proper
validation notice, misrepresenting the amount of her alleged debt, and engaging in deceptive,
false, or misleading communications. Nagle has filed a Motion to Dismiss Count I [Paper No.
9]. Hardy did not file an Opposition. Having considered the Motion, the Court GRANTS the
Motion to Dismiss Count I.
I.
In Count I, Hardy requests relief in the form of an injunction as well as a declaration that
Nagle has acted unlawfully, as well as an order requiring Nagle to disgorge all amounts collected
from her and to credit her all amounts that constituted illegal or improper charges and fees. In its
Motion to Dismiss Count I, Nagle argues that dismissal is appropriate because: (1) declaratory
and injunctive relief is not available to plaintiffs under the FDCPA; and (2) declaratory judgment
is not permitted because the FDCPA prescribes the proper remedy for plaintiffs.
The Court agrees.
II.

1

“Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal of a
complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Quander v. Hillcrest,
Davidson & Assocs., LLC, No. RDB-12-1932, 2012 WL 6727141, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 27, 2012).
A court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true when ruling on such a motion,
but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice” to properly plead a claim. Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)).
The factual allegations must state a claim for relief that is plausible, meaning they must
“permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Although complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs are “to be liberally constructed and…must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” they must still meet the
minimal threshold of plausibility. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations
omitted).
III.
“[E]quitable relief is not available to an individual under the FDCPA.” Parillon v.
Freemont Inv. & Loan, No. L-09-3352, 2010 WL 1328425, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2010); see
also Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 342 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[I]njunctive and declaratory
relief are not available to litigants acting in an individual capacity under the FDCPA.”); Bolin v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 231 F.3d 970, 977, n. 39 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[C]ourts uniformly hold that
the FDCPA does not authorize equitable relief.”); Sibley v. Fulton DeKalb Collection Service,
677 F.2d 830, 834 (11th Cir. 1982) (“[E]quitable relief is not available to an individual under the
civil liability section of the Act.”); Hauk v. LVN Funding, LLC, 749 F. Supp. 2d 358, 368-69 (D.
Md. 2010). In Count I, Hardy, as an individual, brings a claim under the FDCPA, seeking both

2

an injunction and a declaration of unlawful action. However, as the case law makes clear, the
FDCPA creates no such right of action. Id. As a result, Count I fails to state a proper claim and
must be dismissed. It is not necessary, therefore, to address Nagle’s second argument.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Nagle & Zaller, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss Count I
[Paper No. 9] is GRANTED.
A separate order will ISSUE.

/s/________________
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 6, 2013

3