United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE.
Croyer alleges that the defendants violated the federal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act (KCPA) when they brought an action against her
in state court to collect on an outstanding credit card debt.
The defendants, including Pittenger Law Group (PLG) and
individuals associated with the firm, have moved to dismiss
April 1, 2016, PLG sent Croyder a letter concerning an unpaid
credit card debt which had been referred for collection. The
letter identified the amount owed, the names of the debtor
(Croyder) and the creditor (CommunityAmerica Credit Union),
and explained Croyder's FDCPA validation rights. The
letter also stated:
The above debt has been referred to our law office for
collection. We hereby demand payment of this debt in an
amount due of $12, 247.93 as of March 31, 2016. Because
interest may continue to accrue on your account after today,
please contact this office for the exact payoff amount, or
you may send your check for the above amount, and we will
notify you of any additional amount due. Please direct all
phone calls, payments and inquiries to us, not to the
creditor. You may call your account representative, Ricky J.
ext 190, locally at (913) 323-4595 or toll free at
1-866-700-4992. Please mail full payment or call us.
This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt
to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for
that purpose. Unless, within thirty (30) days after receipt
of this notice, you dispute the validity of the debt, or any
portion thereof, we will assume the debt is valid. If you do
not notify us in writing within the thirty (30) day period
that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will
obtain verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment
against you, if there is a judgment, and a copy of such
verification will be mailed to you by us. Upon your written
request within the thirty (30) day period, we will provide
you with the name and address of the original creditor if
different from the current creditor.
April 25, 2016, PLG received a request for validation and
dispute letter from Croyder.
responded by a communication which Croyder received on April
30, 2016 which set forth the name and address of the original
creditor as well as a copy of the Credit Card Agreement and
sixteen (16) monthly account statements.
15, 2016, Croyder wrote again to PLG. The letter did not
dispute any specific portion of the amounts owed.
failed to make any payment on the debt, and PLG filed suit
against Croyder in the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas on August 22, 2016.
FDCPA action filed in this court, Croyder argues that the
lawsuit violates 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a), 1692e(10),
and 1692g(b)). She also alleges the suit violates the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623.
Croyder's Complaint fails to allege any specific facts in
support of her claim for relief. She does not allege she
suffered any actual damages due to any of the acts of the
Defendants, and does not allege that the individual
defendants who were personally named in the caption of the
Complaint were involved in any alleged misconduct. Indeed,
the Complaint fails to mention the individual defendants
beyond the case caption and generic lists of party names in
the body of the Complaint.
defendants seek dismissal because the Complaint fails to set
forth sufficient factual detail to demonstrate a plausible
claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1950 (2009), Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The Twombly and
Iqbal standards are applicable in cases raising
claims under the FDCPA. See Schroeder v. Kahrs, No.
6:15-CV-1178-JTM, 2015 WL 5837689 (D. Kan. Oct. 7, 2015);
Webb v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., No.
2:11-CV-2606-JTM, 2012 WL 162394 (D. Kan. Jan. 19, 2012). The
Complaint lacks any factual allegations and relies on bare
conclusions that the defendants have somehow violated either
the FDCPA or the KCPA.
has submitted a one page response to the defendants'
Motion to Dismiss which merely states that she
“believes that her Complaint is not subject to
dismissal, ” observes that because she is not
represented by counsel, the court “must hold [her to] a
less stringent standard, ” and asks, if the Complaint
is deemed insufficient, Croyder asks that “she be
allowed to amend it.” (Dkt. 14, at 1). Croyder
otherwise provides no response to the defendants'
detailed arguments as to the conclusory nature of her
Complaint. She does not suggest what additional ...