Benjamin v. Allied Interstate Inc.
Filing
28
ORDER Denying as Moot 9 Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Granting 17 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, Denying 18 Motion to File Amended Complaint, and Denying in Part and Granting in Part, respectively, 22 Motion to Strike Sur-Reply, or in the Alternative, for Leave to File Response to Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/17/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
9
STEVEN BENJAMIN
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
ALLIED INTERSTATE, a Minnesota
Business Entity, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
2:11-CV-00881-LRH-CWH
ORDER
Before the court is Defendant Allied Interstate’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
16
(#91). In response, Plaintiff Steven Benjamin timely filed an Amended Complaint (#14) as of right,
17
rendering the motion moot.
18
Also, before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended
19
Complaint (#17). In response, Plaintiff filed an Opposition, or in the Alternative, Motion for Leave
20
to File Amended Complaint (#18), Defendants filed a Reply (#19), and Plaintiff filed a Response
21
Supporting His Motion, in the Alternative, for Leave to File Amended Complaint (#21).
22
Also before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-reply or in the
23
Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Response to Sur-reply (#22), Plaintiff’s opposition (#23), and
24
Defendant’s reply (#24).
25
26
1
Refers to the court’s docket entry number.
1
I.
2
Facts and Procedural History
This is an action under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and the federal
3
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiff allegedly owes a past-due consumer debt
4
that Defendant, a debt collection agency, is seeking to collect. In June 2010, Plaintiff received a
5
collection letter from Defendant demanding payment of the debt. The letter identifies the debt
6
sought to be collected as “Amount Due: $1,062.39.” Plaintiff alleges, based on information and
7
belief, that “this amount exceeds the principal amount allegedly owed, and includes unspecified
8
sums for interest, charges, fees and/or expenses which are incidental to the principal amount
9
allegedly owed.” Amended Complaint (#14), ¶ 21. Plaintiff further alleges that this failure to
10
itemize charges in addition to principal violates Nevada and federal law.
11
II.
12
Legal Standard
Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
13
12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must satisfy the
14
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) notice pleading standard. See Mendiondo v. Centinela
15
Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008). A complaint must contain “a short and
16
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
17
The Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standard does not require detailed factual allegations; however, a
18
pleading that offers only “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
19
cause of action” will not suffice. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell
20
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
21
Furthermore, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter,
22
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1949 (internal
23
quotation marks omitted). A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows
24
the court to draw the reasonable inference, based on the court’s judicial experience and common
25
sense, that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See id. at 1949-50. “The plausibility
26
2
1
standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
2
defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
3
defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
4
relief.” Id. at 1949 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
5
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as
6
true. Id. (citation omitted). However, “bare assertions . . . amount[ing] to nothing more than a
7
formulaic recitation of the elements of a . . . claim . . . are not entitled to an assumption of truth.”
8
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951)
9
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court discounts these allegations
10
because they do “nothing more than state a legal conclusion – even if that conclusion is cast in the
11
form of a factual allegation.” Id. (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951.) “In sum, for a complaint to
12
survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from
13
that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Id. (quoting
14
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949).
15
III.
Discussion
16
A. Motion to Dismiss
17
The Nevada DTPA prohibits collection agencies from collecting or attempting to collect
18
“any interest, charge, fee or expense incidental to the principal obligation unless:” the incidental
19
item was added to the principal of the debt either (a) “by the [original] creditor before receipt of the
20
item of collection,” or (b) “by the collection agency and described as such in the first written
21
communication with the debtor.” NRS 649.375(2). In other words, collection agencies may
22
attempt to collect such incidental charges beyond the principal owing. Itemization is required only
23
if the incidental charges were added by the collection agency after the original creditor sent the debt
24
to collections. Accordingly, in an action against a collection agency premised on the failure to
25
26
3
1
itemize incidental charges, a consumer must allege that the charges were added by the collection
2
agency in order to state a claim for violation of NRS 649.375(2).
3
Here, Plaintiff merely alleges that the amount sought to be collected “is more than the
4
principal amount allegedly owed, and includes unspecified [i.e., un-itemized] sums for interest,
5
charges, fees and/or expense which are incidental to the principal amount allegedly owed.”
6
Amended Complaint (#14), ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Yet this fails to identify who added the
7
incidental charges—the original creditor or the collection agency—thus creating a critical
8
ambiguity in the application of NRS 649.375(2)(a) and (b). By failing to allege that Defendant, as
9
opposed to Plaintiff’s original creditor, added the alleged additional amounts, Plaintiff’s complaint
10
is “merely consistent” with Defendant’s liability and “stops short of the line between possibility
11
and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. The complaint therefore fails to
12
state a claim for violation of the Nevada DTPA. Further, Plaintiff’s second claim for relief under
13
the federal FDCPA also fails, as Plaintiff himself regards the claim as “purely derivative” of the
14
alleged state law violations. Opposition (#18), p. 5.
15
B. Motion for Leave to Amend
16
Plaintiff requests leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) in the event the court does not
17
deny the motion to dismiss. See Opposition (#18), p. 5. However, Plaintiff’s request, which
18
consists of a single sentence and is devoid of any explanation of the amendments that might be
19
made, is wholly insufficient to be regarded as a proper motion to amend. See L.R. 15-1 (“the
20
moving party shall attach the proposed amended pleading to any motion to amend”).
21
Furthermore, even considering Plaintiff’s proposed amendment, as described in his reply in
22
support of the motion to amend, the court finds that amendment would be futile. Plaintiff proposes
23
adding “an additional sentence” to the complaint stating that Defendant “violated NRS 649.375 by
24
attempting to collect incidental charges over and above the principal amount allegedly owed to the
25
original creditor when it had no evidence that such amounts were added to the principal amount by
26
4
1
the collector under color or law or by agreement of the parties to the original credit transaction.”
2
Plaintiff’s Response (#21), p. 4.
3
Whether directed at subsection (a) or (b) of NRS 649.375(2), the court finds this
4
supplemental allegation to be insufficient. To the extent Plaintiff intends this allegation to buttress
5
its failure-to-itemize claim under subsection (b), Plaintiff still fails to include any allegation that the
6
incidental charges were added by Defendant, rather than by the original creditor. And to the extent
7
the amendment is directed at subsection (a), Plaintiff fails to allege that the incidental charges that
8
Defendant is attempting to collect were in fact unauthorized by law or not agreed to by the parties.
9
See NRS 649.375(2)(a) (authorizing the collection of incidental charges that are “authorized by law
10
or . . . agreed to by the parties” and that have been added by the original creditor before being sent
11
to collections). Instead, the proposed amendment alleges only that Defendants failed to confirm
12
whether or not the incidental charges added by the original creditor were valid. As subsection (a)
13
imposes no such duty to verify, but only prohibits the collection of incidentals that are in fact
14
unauthorized, the complaint would continue to fail to state a claim for violation of NRS 649.375(2)
15
even with the proposed supplemental allegation.
16
The identified deficiencies in the complaint would be easily cured if only Plaintiff were
17
willing and able to make the necessary factual allegations. After all, it is hardly difficult to allege
18
that the incidental charges that Defendant is attempting to collect were (a) added by the original
19
creditor but unauthorized, or (b) added by Defendant and not itemized. Yet Plaintiff’s proposed
20
amendments fail to include such factual allegations and even appear designed to scrupulously avoid
21
them. The court therefore can only conclude that such allegations cannot be made and that
22
amendment would be futile. The action shall be dismissed accordingly.
23
24
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
(#9) is DENIED as moot.
25
26
5
1
2
3
4
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (#17) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
(#18) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-reply or in
6
the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Response to Sur-reply (#22) is DENIED in part and
7
GRANTED in part, respectively.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
DATED this 17th day of May, 2012.
10
11
12
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
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?