Jallo v. Resurgent Capital Services LP et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION - DENYING 22 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Resurgent Capital Services LP, LVNV Funding, LLC. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/22/2015. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
BRYAN JALLO, on behalf of himself and ) §
others similarly situated
§
§
§
V.
§
§
§
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P. §
and LVNV FUNDING, LLC
§
CASE NO. 4:14CV449
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. #22). Having considered the relevant pleadings, the Court is of the
opinion that the motion should be denied.
On December 15, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. #22).
On December 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. #26). On January 5, 2015, Defendants filed
a reply (Dkt. #28).
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the same standard as
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 529 (5th Cir. 2004)
(citation omitted). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss argues that, irrespective of jurisdiction, the
complaint fails to assert facts that give rise to legal liability of the defendant. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure require that each claim in a complaint include “a short and plain statement . . .
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The claims must include
enough factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
-1-
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a party may move for dismissal of an action for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The Court must accept as true
all well-pleaded facts contained in the plaintiff’s complaint and view them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “The
Supreme Court recently expounded upon the Twombly standard, explaining that ‘[t]o survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Gonzalez, 577 F.3d at 603 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678). “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. “It
follows, that ‘where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not ‘shown’ - ‘that the pleader is
entitled to relief.’” Id.
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court established a two-step approach for assessing the sufficiency of
a complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. First, the Court should identify and disregard
conclusory allegations for they are “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664.
Second, the Court “consider[s] the factual allegations in [the complaint] to determine if they
plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id. “This standard ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise
-2-
a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of’ the necessary claims or elements.”
Morgan v. Hubert, 335 F. App’x 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2009). This evaluation will “be a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss, a district court may generally not “go
outside the pleadings.” Scanlan v. Tex. A&M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003). When ruling
on a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint, however, a district court is “required to look beyond the
[plaintiff’s] formal complaint and to consider as amendments to the complaint those materials
subsequently filed.” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); Clark v. Huntleigh Corp.,
119 F. App’x 666, 667 (5th Cir. 2005) (finding that because of plaintiff’s pro se status, “precedent
compels us to examine all of his complaint, including the attachments”); FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e)
(“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Furthermore, a district court may consider
documents attached to a motion to dismiss if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are
central to the plaintiff’s claim. Scanlan, 343 F.3d at 536.
ANALYSIS
After reviewing the current complaint, the motion, the response, and the reply, the Court
.
finds that Plaintiff has stated plausible claims for purposes of defeating a Rule 12 motion.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. #22) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of January, 2015.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?