At problem is Defendant optimum Title Loans LLC’s Motion to Dismiss

At problem is Defendant optimum Title Loans LLC’s Motion to Dismiss


Sean McCullough, Plaintiff, v. Optimum Title Loans LLC, Defendant.

Honorable John J. Tuchi United States Of America District Judge


(Doc. 17, Mot. ), to which Plaintiff Sean McCullough filed an answer (Doc. 18, Resp. ), and Defendant filed an answer (Doc. 20, Answer).


May 1, 2018, Plaintiff obtained that loan from Defendant for $10,000. (Doc. 1, Compl. ¶ 9. ) Pursuant to a funding contract regulating the mortgage (the “contract”), Plaintiff ended up being obligated to produce planned re re payments to Defendant because of the first repayment due on June 30, 2018. (Compl. ¶ 11. )

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made telephone phone phone calls and delivered texting to their cell phone trying to gather in the loan right after the ongoing events joined the contract. (Compl. ¶ 13. ) Whenever responding to the telephone phone phone calls, Plaintiff experienced a pause lasting a few moments and over over and over said “hello” before being attached to a real time agent. (Compl. ¶ 16. ) Plaintiff asked that Defendant stop calling him because payments beneath the Agreement were not yet due. (Compl. ¶ 17. ) Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s request, Defendant allegedly made at the least thirty more phone phone telephone calls to Plaintiff from multiple telephone numbers. (Compl. ¶ 18. )

In February 2019, Plaintiff filed a problem alleging that Defendant willfully and knowingly violated the phone customer Protection Act (“TCPA”). (Compl. ¶ 28. ) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant utilized a telephone that is automatic system (“ATDS”) in order to make phone calls and send texts to Plaintiff’s cellular phone without Plaintiff’s consent. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26. ) Within the issue, Plaintiff also raises claims for deliberate infliction of emotional stress and breach of agreement (collectively the “state legislation claims”). (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 39. ) Defendant now moves to dismiss the TCPA reason behind action for failure to mention a claim, and also to the level that movement is given, Defendant contends that the Court should decrease to retain jurisdiction on the state legislation claims and therefore dismiss the total amount for the problem. (Mot. At 1. )


When analyzing a grievance for failure to mention a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are taken as real and construed within the light many favorable to your nonmoving celebration. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F. 3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must allege facts that are”enough state a claim to relief this is certainly plausible on its face. ” Bell Atl. Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations aren’t eligible to the presumption of truth, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009), and they are inadequate to beat a movement to dismiss for failure to mention a claim. In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F. 3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).

A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to convey a claim could be predicated on either (1) having less a cognizable appropriate theory or (2) insufficient facts to guide a cognizable claim that is legal. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F. 2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). “While a problem assaulted with a Rule 12(b)(6) movement doesn’t need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s responsibility to give the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires significantly more than labels and conclusions, and a recitation that is formulaic of aspects of a factor in action will perhaps not do. ” Twombly, 550 U.S. At 555 (citations omitted). The grievance must therefore include “sufficient factual matter, accepted as real, to ‘state a claim to relief this is certainly plausible on its face. ‘” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. At 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. At 570). “A well-pleaded complaint may continue no matter if it hits a savvy judge that real evidence of those facts is improbable, and that ‘recovery is extremely remote and not likely. ‘” Twombly, 550 U.S. At 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

Tags: No tags

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *