Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00741/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00741-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 11cv741 BTM(MDD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA A. ROSE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv741 BTM(MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS

AURORA LOAN SERVICES,

Defendant.

Defendant Aurora Loan Services has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for

failure to state a claim. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

On March 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action in state Small Claims Court. Plaintiff

claims that Defendant owes her $1.00 because Defendant allegedly violated California’s

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act. However, Plaintiff does not specify which provisions of these

acts Defendant allegedly violated and does not allege any facts in support of her claims.

Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper when a plaintiff's

complaint lacks a "cognizable legal theory" or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal

theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). When

reviewing a motion to dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff’s complaint are taken

as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc.

Case 3:11-cv-00741-BTM-MDD Document 4 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 11cv741 BTM(MDD)

v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Although detailed factual allegations are

not required, factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“A plaintiff’s obligation to prove 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.” Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the

mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S,Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009)

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Due to the complete absence of factual allegations and the lack of clarity regarding

which statutory provisions Defendant allegedly violated, dismissal of the Complaint is

warranted. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file

an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above within 20 days of the entry

of this Order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the prescribed time, the

Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case, and this case will be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED: June 13, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00741-BTM-MDD Document 4 Filed 06/13/11 Page 2 of 2