Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00054/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALEX SMITH, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:15-cv-54-MHT-WC 

 ) 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 On January 22, 2015, Alex Smith, Jr., (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a 

complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”), alleging “possible violations of 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 [et seq.], the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 [et seq.], Alabama Deceptive Trade 

Practices Act (“DTPA”), [Ala. Code] § 8–19[-]1, and Defamation of Character.” Compl. 

(Doc. 1) at 1. The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge 

“for consideration and disposition or recommendation on all pretrial matters as may be 

appropriate.” Order (Doc. 4). 

Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, Mot. 

(Doc. 12) at 1, and Defendant’s Memorandum of Law (Doc. 13) in support thereof. 

Following an order by the court to show cause as to why the motion to dismiss should not 

be granted (Doc. 14), Plaintiff filed a response. Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 15) at 1-4. After a 

Case 2:15-cv-00054-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 7
2 

review of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and all supporting memoranda, and for the 

following reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. 12) be GRANTED. 

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Although Plaintiff’s pro se filings are not a model of clarity, the submissions of 

the parties, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establish the 

following relevant facts: 

On August 12, 2010, Plaintiff’s mother, Novella Smith, executed an Adjustable 

Rate Note (“Note”) in favor of Defendant, which was secured by a mortgage on a 

property located at 1048 Pelham Street in Montgomery, Alabama. Compl. Ex. E (Doc. 1-

5) at 3-22; Def.’s Mem. (Doc. 13) at 1-2. Sometime thereafter, Novella Smith passed 

away. Compl. Ex. D (Doc. 1-4) at 2; Compl. Ex. E (Doc. 1-5) at 2; Def.’s Mem. (Doc. 

13) at 1; Pl.’s Resp. (Doc. 15) at 1. On or about May 1, 2014, purportedly pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. § 1692(g), Plaintiff served Defendant a “Writ” demanding validation of the 

alleged debt. Compl. Ex. A (Doc. 1-1) at 2-6. Meanwhile, Defendant purchased the 

Property at a foreclosure sale held on May 20, 2014. Compl. Ex. D (Doc. 1-4) at 2. In 

June of 2014, Plaintiff served Defendant an “Affidavit of Fact Notice of Default 

Judgment” for failing to respond to the “Writ” served in May 2014. Compl. Ex. B (Doc. 

1-2) at 2-5. On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff served Defendant with another “Affidavit of Fact 

Default Judgment,” this time for failure to verify and validate its claim for the alleged 

debt. Compl. Ex. C (Doc. 1-3) at 2-4. In August 2014, Defendant sent a 10-Day Notice 

Case 2:15-cv-00054-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 7
3 

to Vacate the Property, addressed to “The Estate of Novella Smith.”1 Compl. Ex. D 

(Doc. 1-4) at 2-3. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

Defendant has moved the court to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “Under [Rule 12(b)(6)], whether a plaintiff failed 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted must be ascertained from the face of the 

complaint.” Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs., 104 F.3d 1256, 1266 n.11 (11th Cir. 

1997). Generally, “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless 

it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 

which would entitle him to relief.” In re Johannessen, 76 F.3d 347, 349 (11th Cir. 1996). 

In considering a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must “accept the facts of the 

complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Magluta v. Samples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004). 

B. Federal Claims 

1. Count I: Claims of FDCPA Violations 

In Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff contends Defendant violated the FDCPA for 

various reasons, including their failure to respond to his requests for verification of any 

debt owed. Compl. (Doc. 1) at 4-6. Defendant contends, because the debt is a 

 

1

 On November 12, 2014, Defendant filed an ejectment action against Plaintiff in Montgomery County 

Circuit Court in Alabama. Def.’s Mem. (Doc. 13) at 2 n.1; Ex. A (Doc. 13-1) at 1-8. 

Case 2:15-cv-00054-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 7
4 

mortgagee, originated to Novella Smith, Defendant is not a debt collector as defined 

under the FDCPA. Def.’s Mem. (Doc. 13) at 2-4. 

“To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the plaintiff has 

been the object of collection activity arising from consumer debt, (2) the defendant is a 

debt collector as defined by the FDCPA, and (3) the defendant has engaged in an act or 

omission prohibited by the FDCPA.” Ruth v. Tenen, No. 3:12CV40-WHA, 2012 WL 

2135478, at *2 (M.D. Ala. June 13, 2012) (citing Janke v. Wells Fargo and Co., 805 F. 

Supp. 2d 1278, 1281 (M.D. Ala. 2011)). “The FDCPA defines a “debt collector” as a 

person who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in a business 

which has the principal purpose of collecting debts, or who regularly collects debts owed 

to another.” Warren v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 342 F. App’x 458, 460 (11th Cir. 

2009) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)). “It is well-established that mortgage servicers do 

not fall within the definition of debt collector[s].” Jenkins v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, 

LP, 822 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 1374 (M.D. Ga. 2011) (citing Warren, 342 F. App’x at 460 

(determining that “the act of foreclosing on a security interest is not debt collection 

activity for the purposes of the FDCPA”)). 

Because foreclosing on a home is not debt collection for purposes of § 1692g, 

Plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim under that provision based on Defendant’s 

foreclosure sale of his home. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim fails and is due to be 

dismissed. 

Case 2:15-cv-00054-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 7
5 

2. Count II: FCRA Violations 

Plaintiff argues “that at all relevant times Defendant . . . failed to maintain, and 

failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of 

Plaintiff’s credit reports, concerning the accounts in question.” Compl. (Doc. 1) at 8. 

Defendant argues, “[Plaintiff’s] failure to assert that [Defendant] received notice of a 

dispute [Plaintiff] submitted from a CRA is fatal to his FCRA claim against 

[Defendant].” Def. Mem. (Doc. 13) at 5. 

The FCRA, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681s-2, “imposes two separate duties on furnishers[: 

f]irst, § 1681s–2(a) requires furnishers to submit accurate information to [credit reporting 

agencies; and s]econd, § 1681s–2(b) requires furnishers to investigate and respond 

promptly to notices of customer disputes.” Green v. RBS Nat. Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 

642 (11th Cir. 2008). While the FCRA prohibits furnishers of credit information, like 

Defendant, from providing false information in § 1681s-2(a), “the statute explicitly bars 

private suits for violations of this provision.” Peart v. Shippie, 345 F. App’x 384, 386 

(11th Cir. 2009) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(c)(1)(B) (allowing states to bring an action for 

violations)). “The FCRA does provide a private right of action for a violation of § 

1681s–2(b), but only if the furnisher received notice of the consumer’s dispute from a 

consumer reporting agency.” Green, 288 F. App’x at 642. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under the FCRA because it does not 

allege that Defendant failed to conduct an investigation into Plaintiff’s credit history after 

being notified of a dispute by a credit reporting agency. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FCRA 

claim fails and is due to be dismissed. 

Case 2:15-cv-00054-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 7
6 

C. State Law Claims 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) also pleads state law claims for invasion of privacy 

and “negligent, wanton, and/or intentional hiring and supervision of incompetent 

employees or agents,” as well as violations of Alabama’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act 

and Alabama’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Compl. (Doc. 1) at 9-12. 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to raise state law claims, those claims are due to be 

dismissed. Even if the court were to find valid state law claims existed, the exercise of 

this court’s supplemental jurisdiction would be inappropriate. The exercise of this 

jurisdiction is discretionary. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1996). 

Because the court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, the court declines to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims and recommends that those claims be 

dismissed. See Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726; Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 

(11th Cir. 2004) (“We have encouraged district courts to dismiss any remaining state 

claims when, as here, the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.”). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge that, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) be GRANTED, with 

prejudice as to Count I and Count II of the Complaint and without prejudice as to all 

remaining state claims. 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before February 5, 2016. A party must specifically identify the 

Case 2:15-cv-00054-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 01/22/16 Page 6 of 7
7 

factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is 

made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file 

written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance 

with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo

determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the 

Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by 

the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. 

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Stein v. Lanning 

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 

F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). The parties are advised that this Recommendation 

is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

Done this 22nd day of January, 2016. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00054-MHT-WC Document 16 Filed 01/22/16 Page 7 of 7