Jones v. Law Offices of Kirk A. Cullimore et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case forthwith. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/14/17. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFEDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
LAW OFFICES OF KIRK A.
CULLIMORE, LLC, and HONORABLE
Case No. 2:15-CV-694 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss filed by The Law Offices of Kirk
A. Cullimore, L.L.C. (the “Defendant”). Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion.
R.C. Willey Home Furnishings (“R.C. Willey”), through Defendant, filed a Complaint
against Plaintiff in the Utah Third District Court on January 29, 2012. Judgment for R.C. Willey
was entered on February 7, 2013, and Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appealed. Plaintiff argued
that he did not receive notice of R.C.Willey’s motion for summary judgment. The Utah Court of
Appeals remanded the case to allow Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
On remand, Judge Barlow, the judge overseeing the action, entered a default judgment
against Plaintiff on November 3, 2014, for his failure to appear at a pretrial conference. Plaintiff
appealed; however, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendant and Judge
Barlow. The Complaint against Judge Barlow was dismissed under the doctrine of judicial
immunity and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to
amend his Complaint against the Law Offices of Kirk A. Cullimore.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) false or misleading
representations under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10); and (2) unfair practices under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.
Defendant responded with a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff failed to
respond to the Motion.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD
A Motion to Dismiss is appropriate when there is a failure to state a claim. 1 “A court
must accept as true all well-pleaded facts as distinguished from conclusory allegations, and those
facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 2 The Complaint must
include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” 3 and does not suffice
if it “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” 4
A. COUNT I: FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1692E(10)
Section 1692e(10) states that a debt collector may not use “any false representation or
deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant twice mailed court documents to him at an incorrect
address. Plaintiff claims, without offering any factual support, that “Cullimore had full
knowledge of the correct mailing address Plaintiff provided in Nevada, but with the intent to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Shero v. City of Grove, Okla., 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
deprive the Plaintiff the opportunity to contest the attorney fee affidavit and judgment, he
knowingly sent it to the wrong mailing address.” 5
The actions taken by Defendant do not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) because
mailing a court order to an incorrect address does not constitute “false representation or
deceptive means” under the statute. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion
and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant.
B. COUNT II: UNFAIR PRACTICES UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1692F
Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §
1692f which provides that “a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means
to collect or attempt to collect any debt.”
Plaintiff does not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face under Count
II. 6 Plaintiff states conclusory allegations throughout the Amended Complaint 7 that do
not rise to the level of “plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” 8 Therefore, the Court will
grant Defendant’s Motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
Docket No. 18 ¶10.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
See Docket No. 18 ¶¶10–13, 19, 27.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
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?