Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Phox v. Virtuoso Sourcing Group LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division

September 22, 2017

LARONDA PHOX, Plaintiff,
v.
VIRTUOSO SOURCING GROUP, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         This case involves allegations of improperly accessing Plaintiff's credit report. Plaintiff LaRonda Phox (“Phox”) alleges Defendant Virtuoso Sourcing Group, LLC (“Virtuoso”) accessed her credit report without her permission and was not otherwise entitled to do so. Phox, proceeding pro se, filed a two-count lawsuit alleging Virtuoso violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.

         Now before the Court is Virtuoso's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Doc. 10). Finding Phox failed to plead all of the required elements for a claim under either statute, the Court GRANTS Virtuoso's Motion to Dismiss.

         Background

         On March 17, 2017, the Court granted Phox's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and her complaint was filed, initiating this lawsuit against Virtuoso. While her complaint does not formally allege any violations of a particular law, it suggests Virtuoso violated portions of the FCRA and FDCPA. The complaint states: “[t]he Defendants accessed my credit bureau report without my permission” and “[t]he Defendants found out information about me, for which they were not entitled to.” See (Doc 6 at 1).

         In Phox's memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss, she attempts to clarify her complaint by stating additional facts supporting her claim including:

Prior to this action, Plaintiff was disputing a debt which Sprint claimed she owed. As a result of this debt, Virtuoso, a debt collector, willfully and negligently accessed her credit report without permissible purposes. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that she never had any contact or business with Virtuoso. Due to this, Plaintiff alleges Virtuoso violated the FDCPA and the FCRA.

(Doc. 13 at 1).

         Virtuoso argues Phox's complaint should be dismissed for failing to state a claim and that it violates Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure depriving them of proper notice of the claims asserted against them. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).

         Standard of Review

         The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the factual allegations of a complaint are true and construes the facts in favor of the plaintiff. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief' requires more than label and conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Benton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 524 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2009).

         Discussion

         Phox's complaint does not meet the pleading standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, fails to state a claim under either the FCRA or the FDCPA.

         A. Phox's complaint fails to meet the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.