Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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 Further references to a "Rule" will be to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT—No.

C-05-02280 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 10/18/05

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD CARRIZOSA and MARY PEA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PAUL STASSINOS; ALAN MECHAM;

LEGAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.;

LEGAL RECOVERY SERVICES OF

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, INC.; and

CENTRAL VALLEY LEGAL RECOVERY

SERVICES, INC.

Defendants.

No. C-05-02280 RMW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS

FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 7, 8, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21]

Two plaintiffs have sued a group of debt collectors, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o, and California's Unfair Business

Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Three of the defendants move under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure1 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and two of these defendants move in the

alternative under Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement.

The requirements of a modern pleading are few; as the Supreme Court noted long ago, "a

complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 27 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT—No.

C-05-02280 RMW

JAH 2

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 (1957). The basics of the plaintiffs' allegations here are that Paul Stassinos, Alan

Mecham, and the three corporate defendants operated in concert to collect more money from the plaintiffs

for bounced checks than allowed by law. See Compl. ¶ ¶ 12-13, 16, 20-23. The complaint is sufficient to

put the defendants on notice of plaintiffs' claims, and the lack of specific allegations pertaining to agency

theories does not indicate plaintiffs would be unable to prove some set of facts that would entitle them to

recover from each of the defendants moving to dismiss. Granting defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion would

be inappropriate.

Defendants challenge plaintiffs' standing to assert their claims, citing to cases such as Thompson v.

Board of Education, 709 F.2d 1200 (6th Cir. 1983), and Vulcan Society of Westchester County v.

Fire Department of White Plains, 82 F.R.D. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). These cases dealt with standing

issues peculiar to class actions. While plaintiffs have captioned their case as if it were a class action and

clearly have an eye on class certification, this case has not been certified as a class action. Defendants'

standing arguments thus are not relevant at this time. Plaintiffs have alleged defendants harmed them by

violating statutory restrictions on debt collectors; plaintiffs have standing to assert such claims individually. 

Under Rule 12(b), a court may treat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim up which relief

can be granted as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, but to do so must give the parties an

opportunity to present evidence. Defendant Central Valley Legal Recovery Services, Inc., ("Central

Valley") with its motion to dismiss offers a declaration that it has no record of plaintiffs in its files. See

Central Valley Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B at 2. Rather than convert the instant motions into motions for

summary judgment, the court declines to consider matters outside the pleadings at this time. Defendants are

still free, of course, to move for summary judgment at any time. FRCivP 56(b).

Defendants Mecham and Legal Recovery Services of Central California, Inc., ("Central California")

move in the alternative for a more definite statement from the plaintiffs, claiming that the plaintiffs' complaint

is too vague. Mecham and Central California claim that the lack of allegations linking them to the debt

collection letters and nothing beyond conclusory statements that they acted in concert with the other

defendants leave them unable to respond to the plaintiffs' allegations. Mecham Mot. to Dismiss at 3-4;

Central California Mot. to Dismiss at 5-6. Nonetheless, Mecham also points out what he considers flaws

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 27 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 4
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 Other defendants are apparently able to respond to plaintiffs' complaint. Defendant Legal

Recovery Services, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint, and defendant Central Valley has searched its

records and found no mention of plaintiffs, Central Valley Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. B at 2. 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT—No.

C-05-02280 RMW

JAH 3

in plaintiffs' case, such as lack of facts indicating that piercing the corporate veil is warranted here. Id. at 2-

3. Mecham is obviously aware—as Central California should be—of the nature of plaintiffs' claims and

able to adequately respond.2 Their motions for a more definite statement are denied. 

In short, defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motions for a more definite

statement contain arguments more appropriate for motions for summary judgment. Defendants have not

shown that plaintiffs cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle them to relief, nor is the plaintiffs'

complaint so vague or ambiguous that the defendants cannot be reasonably expected to formulate a

response, therefore, defendants' motions are all denied.

DATED: 10/18/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 27 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT—No.

C-05-02280 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com 

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com 

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu 

Counsel for Defendants:

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@mpbf.com 

June D. Coleman jcoleman@mpbf.com 

Christopher E Terrill cet@dossandterrilllaw.com 

Thomas Mark Smith msmith@clifford-brownlaw.com

Scott Lynn Harper sharper@bhsmck.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for efiling under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 10/18/2005 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 27 Filed 10/18/05 Page 4 of 4