United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by
Defendant Navient Solutions, LLC. (EF 10). The matter is
fully briefed and ready for disposition.
STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Allegations are to be
“simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(d)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) provides that
in his or her complaint:
A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single
set of circumstances. . . . If doing so would promote
clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or
occurrence--and each defense other than a denial--must be
stated in a separate count or defense.
claim is so “vague or ambiguous that [a] party cannot
reasonably prepare a response” a party can move for a
more definite statement. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Also, a court
may strike, either pursuant to the motion of a party or on
its own, “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f).
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides for a motion to dismiss based on
the “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” To survive a motion to dismiss a complaint
must show that “‘the pleader is entitled to
relief, ' in order to ‘give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). See also Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to defeat a
motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
“[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief survives a motion to dismiss.”
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). The pleading standard of Rule 8 “does
not require ‘detailed factual allegations, ' but it
demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555).
in regard to a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, the Supreme Court holds:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations,
[citations omitted] a plaintiff's obligation to provide
the “grounds” of his “entitle[ment] to
relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (on a motion to
dismiss, courts “are not bound to accept as true a
legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level, see 5 C. Wright &
A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 1216, pp.
235-236 (3d ed. 2004).
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See also Gregory v.
Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 473 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (“[A] plaintiff ‘must assert facts that
affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader has the
right he claims . . ., rather than facts that are merely
consistent with such a right.'”) (quoting
Stalley v. Catholic Health Initiative, 509 F.3d 517, 521
(8th Cir. 2007)).
“a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it
strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is
improbable.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556
(citation omitted). “The issue is not whether plaintiff
will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled
to offer evidence to support [his or her] claims.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)
(abrogated on other grounds, Horlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800 (1982)).
and LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES
First Amended Complaint Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. The FDCPA is designed to
“eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt
collectors.” Dunham v. Portfolio Recovery
Assocs.,663 F.3d 997, 1000 (8th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Richmond v. Higgins,435 F.3d 825, 828 (8th
Cir. 2006)). “[D]ebt collectors are liable for failure
to comply with ‘any provision'” ...