A Magistrate judge in California has recommended that a defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted, although saying the plaintiff should have the opportunity to submit an amended complaint, in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act case that contained a “laundry list” of alleged violations without any factual allegations to substantiate the claims.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Horton v. Convergent Outsourcing can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff originally filed the case in state court, after which the defendant removed the case to federal court and sought the motion to dismiss. The defendant argued that the statute of limitations on the alleged violations had expired and that the allegations made in the complaint were insufficient to state a claim.
Unfortunately, the plaintiff doesn’t specify in his complaint what exactly the defendant did to violate either the FCRA or the FDCPA, noted Judge Jeremy D. Peterson of the District Court for the Eastern District of California.
“The list of violations contains no factual allegations; nowhere does he describe the acts or omissions that he believes defendant to have taken in violation of the listed statutes,” Judge Peterson wrote. “Even under the liberal pleading standards accorded to pro se litigants, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient.”
The defendant also noted that the plaintiff waited more than two years to file the complaint after the alleged violation was incurred, well after the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations had expired and the FCRA’s two-year statute of limitations had expired.
Judge Peterson gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, noting that federal pleading requirements are different than those in small claims court, and because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
