Redman vs Bank of America
Filing
41
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ; adopting Findings and Recommendations re 37 Findings and Recommendations.; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 2/2/2016. (SLL, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
JAMI REDMAN,
Plaintiff,
CV-15-10-BU-BMM
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. fka
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,
INC., and DOES 1-100,
ORDER
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jami Redman (Redman) filed a Complaint pro se on March 5, 2015.
(Doc. 1). The Complaint relates to a loan Redman obtained from Guild Mortgage
Company in the amount of $265,000 on or about June 20, 2007. The loan was
secured by a promissory note in favor of Guild Mortgage Company, and a deed of
trust granting Guild mortgage Company a security interest in real property located
in Gallatin County, Montana. Defendant Bank of America is the current holder of
the creditor’s interest in the promissory note and deed of trust. Bank of America
has undertaken efforts to collect the proceeds of the loan from Redman. Redman
filed the present action to challenge Bank of America’s authority to collect the debt.
The Complaint asserts three separate causes of action against Bank of
America. First, Redman pleads an action for an accounting of the amounts Bank of
America contends she owes. Second, Redman alleges that Bank of America has
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., by falsely
misrepresenting its status as the current holder of the creditor’s interest in the
promissory note and deed of trust. Third, Redman alleges that Bank of America has
violated the Telephone Communications Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., by
delivering communications to Redman by telephone without her consent. Bank of
America moved to dismiss Redman’s Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
(Doc. 9).
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on October 7, 2015. (Doc. 37). Judge Lynch
found that each of Redman’s claims were subject to dismissal because they failed to
include sufficient factual allegations necessary to state a legally cognizable claim.
(Doc. 37 at 14). Judge Lynch recommended that Redman’s Complaint be dismissed
without prejudice unless Redman amended her Complaint to plead additional facts
which would support viable claims for relief. Judge Lynch gave Redman until
November 27, 2015, to file an amended complaint if she elected to do so. (Docs. 37
at 14, 39). Redman did not file an amended complaint. Redman did not file
objections to Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations.
The Court has reviewed Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations for
clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d
-2-
1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds no error in Judge Lynch’s Findings
and Recommendations, and adopts them in full.
A.
Action for an Accounting
In Montana, a cause of action for accounting requires the plaintiff to plead
facts demonstrating the plaintiff is unable to procure an accounting for herself.
Johnston v. Silver, 196 P. 515, 517 (Mont. 1921); Ayotte v. Nadeau, 81 P. 145
(Mont. 1905); Wetzstein v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver
Mining Company, 72 P. 865, 867 (Mont. 1903). A plaintiff must plead facts
establishing that she previously demanded that the defendant produce an
accounting, and that the defendant refused to do so. Johnston, 196 P. at 517.
Absent those necessary facts a pleading fails to sufficiently state a cause of action
for an accounting on which the court grant relief. Id.
Redman’s Complaint fails to state a claim for accounting because it does not
allege that she previously demanded an accounting from Bank of America which
was refused.
B.
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads
-3-
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Redman’s
Complaint fails to describe specific actions taken by Bank of America on specific
occasions which constitute violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Complaint merely recites language contained within various provisions of the
Act. A “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. See
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
C.
Telephone Communications Protection Act
The Telephone Communications Protection Act (TCPA) makes it unlawful
for a person “to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or
made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice – to any [wireless
telephone].” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii); Daniels v. Comunity Lending, Inc., 2014
WL 51275, *5 (S.D. Cal. 2014). To state a claim under the TCPA, the plaintiff
must allege all three of the following: (1) the defendant called the plaintiff’s cellular
telephone; (2) the defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice; and (3) the plaintiff did not give prior express
consent to the calls at issue. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., 2015
WL 4698398, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
-4-
The allegations in Redman’s Complaint merely recite the bare elements of
the TCPA claim. She alleges Bank of America “initiated numerous telephone calls
to Plaintiff’s telephone line using artificial and or prerecorded voices to deliver
messages without the express consent of Plaintiff[.]” (Doc. 1 at 12). Redman fails
to plead factual content sufficient to allow the Court to draw the reasonable
inference that Bank of America has violated the TPCA. Therefore, Redman’s
claims under the TPCA are subject to dismissal. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
3.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2016.
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?