Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01381/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01381-1/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TRACI BOYD, an individual,

NO. CIV. S 05-1381 MCE JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

ATTENTION LLC, a business

entity of unknown form;

PHYLLIS MALLORY, an

individual; WELLS FARGO BANK,

a business entity of unknown

form, and DOES 1 through 25,

inclusive,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”) has brought a

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) on grounds that the First Cause of Action pled in

Plaintiff’s complaint, while alleging a violation of the Federal

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), fails to state a

claim against Wells Fargo upon which relief can be granted. 

The FDCPA authorizes relief when a “debt collector” violates

its provisions (15 U.S.C. § 1692k). A “debt collector” is

Case 2:05-cv-01381-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 3
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

generally defined by the FDCPA as one who is attempting to

collect a debt owed or due to another. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). 

Wells Fargo argues that Plaintiff cannot state a viable claim

against it under the FDCPA because whatever actions it took were

undertaken to collect its own debt, rather than the debt of

another.

In response, Plaintiff concedes the general proposition

advanced by Wells Fargo in the present matter, but contends that

even an entity like Wells Fargo attempting to collect its own

debt may nonetheless incur liability under the FDCPA under

certain circumstances. See id.; see also Maguire v. Citicorp

Retail Services, Inc., 147 F.3d 232, 235-38 (2d Cir. 1998);

Tayler v. Perrin, Landry, deLaunay & Durand, 103 F.3d 1232, 1239

(5 Cir. 1997). A creditor may still be liable under the FDCPA, th

for example, if it uses a name other than its own to mislead a

consumer into believing that a third party is attempting to

collect the debt.

Plaintiff does not oppose Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss

given her admission that she does not presently know of any

conduct on Wells Fargo’s part bringing it within the scope of the

FDCPA. (Wells Fargo’s Response to Motion, 3:14-18). Plaintiff

nonetheless argues that she should be permitted to refile a claim

under the FDCPA against Wells Fargo should discovery later show

that such a claim is indeed warranted. Consequently, while

Plaintiff stipulates to dismissal of the First Cause of Action at

this time, she requests that such dismissal be made without

prejudice.

Given Plaintiff’s concession that no viable claim exists at

Case 2:05-cv-01381-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 09/09/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

present against Wells Fargo for violation of the FDCPA, Wells

Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against it pursuant

to the First Cause of Action is GRANTED. Said dismissal shall,

however, be without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 9, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01381-MCE -JFM Document 13 Filed 09/09/05 Page 3 of 3