United States District Court, E.D. Washington
STEPHEN E. WEIGAND, Plaintiff,
MATTHEW CHEUNG, an individual; and PATENAUDE & FELIX, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
STANLEY A. BASTIAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13. The motion was heard without oral argument.
On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Complaint, alleging violations for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants now move to dismiss the action.
A. Motion Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides: "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory." Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).
To sufficiently state a claim for relief and survive a Rule 12(b) (6) motion, a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but it must provide more than a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id. When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all "well-pleaded factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.2009) (quotations omitted).
B. Plaintiff's Allegations
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's complaint:
In January, 2008, Plaintiff and his wife purchased a car and obtained a loan from Toyota Motor Credit (TMC) Corporation. In April, 2011, Plaintiff and his wife divorced. The dissolution decree required the wife to pay for the car loan. The wife eventually defaulted on the car loan; however, Plaintiff had no knowledge of the default.
On August 2, 2013, Plaintiff was served by Defendants with an unfiled Summons and Spokane County Superior Court Complaint. The purpose of the Complaint was to collect on the TMC loan.
On August 6, 2013, Plaintiff responded to the Summons and Complaint by mailing and faxing his response to Defendants and denying liability.
On October 17, 2013, Defendants filed the TMC case against Plaintiff and his wife in Spokane County Superior Court and moved the court for default judgment against them on the same day. The motion was granted on October 29, 2013.
On December 26, 2013, Defendants sent correspondence to the wife, confirming that a settlement of the account for the sum of $5, 500, as well as a payment arrangement, was agreed to between Defendants and the wife. This correspondence did not indicate that judgment had been obtained against Plaintiff.
On January 27, 2014, Defendants sent correspondence to Plaintiff, informing him for the first time that a judgment was entered against him. The letter stated that the Judgment Balance Due was $6, 118.82. The letter also did not indicate that Defendants entered ...