Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00479/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00479-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRNA AQUINO, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

dba CAPITAL ONE; CIR LAW OFFICES,

LLP; CHRISTOPHER BEYER, an

individual,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08-0479 SC

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT

CAPITAL ONE'S MOTION

TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss

filed by the defendant Capital One Bank, sued erroneously as

Capital One Financial Corporation ("Capital One"). Docket No. 5. 

Plaintiff filed an Opposition and Capital One submitted a Reply. 

Docket Nos. 7, 10. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN

PART and DENIES IN PART Capital One's Motion to Dismiss. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was issued a credit card by Capital One and

eventually fell behind on her payments. Notice of Removal, Docket

No. 1, Ex. A, Compl. ¶¶ 15-17. Capital One attempted,

unsuccessfully, to recover Plaintiff's missing payments. Id. ¶¶

Case 3:08-cv-00479-SC Document 11 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

21-26. Collection of Plaintiff's account was then designated to

Defendant CIR Law Offices and Defendant Christopher Beyer by

Defendant Capital One. Id. ¶ 27. After enduring aggressive

collection practices by all three Defendants that were allegedly

in violation of state and federal law, Plaintiff filed suit in the

Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. Id.

Defendants subsequently removed the action to this Court.

 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss

tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Dismissal pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to

articulate "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.

1955, 1974 (2007). For purposes of such a motion, the complaint

is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all

properly pleaded factual allegations are taken as true. Jenkins

v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Everest & Jennings, Inc.

v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir. 1994). All

reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. 

Id. Unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast

in the form of factual allegations, however, are insufficient to

defeat a motion to dismiss. W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d

618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

B. Analysis

Capital One has moved to dismiss both of Plaintiff's causes

Case 3:08-cv-00479-SC Document 11 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The FDCPA and RFDCPA contain different definitions of "debt

collector" and Capital One does not assert that it is not a debt

collector under the RFDCPA.

3

of action as applied to Capital One. Plaintiff's first cause of

action alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Capital One asserts that

it is not a "debt collector," as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6),

and therefore cannot be in violation of the FDCPA. Plaintiff

concedes that Capital One is not a "debt collector" under §

1692a(6). See Opp'n at 1. 

"To state a claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, a plaintiff must allege, inter alia, that . . . the

defendant collecting the 'debt' is a 'debt collector' . . . ." 

Uyeda v. J.A. Cambece Law Office, Case No. 04-4312, 2005 WL

1168421, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2005). As Plaintiff has not

alleged that Capital One is a "debt collector" as defined by §

1692a, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violation of the

FDCPA against Capital One. Amendment would not cure this defect. 

The FDCPA claim is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE against

Defendant Capital One.

Plaintiff's second cause of action alleges violations of the

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, ("RFDCPA"),

California Civil Code §§ 1788 et seq. The RFDCPA is California's

version of the federal FDCPA. Capital One asserts that Plaintiff

has provided insufficient factual allegations to support this

cause of action.1

 The Court disagrees and DENIES Capital One's

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for violations of the RFDCPA.

Case 3:08-cv-00479-SC Document 11 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART Defendant Capital One's Motion to Dismiss. 

Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Capital One for violations of

the federal FDCPA is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Capital One's

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for violations of the RFDCPA

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2008

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00479-SC Document 11 Filed 04/14/08 Page 4 of 4