Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00157/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James L. Whitaker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Sallie Mae, Inc., 

Defendant.

No. CV 12-00157-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 8). Although Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion was 

due on February 17, 2012, no response has been filed with the Court. Failure to respond 

alone is grounds for the Court to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See L.R. Civ. 

7.2(i). While Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s motion constitutes 

acquiescence to the motion being granted, the Court also agrees with Defendant’s 

substantive analysis and will therefore grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the merits. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks relief related to Defendant’s attempts to 

collect a debt and asserts two causes of action: (1) invasion of privacy under Ariz. Rev. 

Stat. § 13-2921(E); and (2) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Doc. 1-1). 

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s first cause of action on the basis that Ariz. Rev. 

Stat. § 13-2921(E) is a criminal statute defining harassment and does not provide a 

private cause of action. While the Court agrees that no civil cause of action is available 

to Plaintiff under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2921(E), and will accordingly grant Defendant’s 

Case 2:12-cv-00157-NVW Document 11 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

motion to dismiss on that basis, Plaintiff’s first cause of action is entitled “invasion of 

privacy.” Although the substance of the count alleges harassment and cites to Ariz. Rev. 

Stat. § 13-2921(E), on the facts alleged, Plaintiff may be able to amend his complaint to 

state a common law claim for relief sounding in tort. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 

1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[F]ederal courts [are to] liberally construe the ‘inartful 

pleading’ of pro se litigants.”). Because leave to amend should be freely given “when 

justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and because Plaintiff may be able to fairly 

plead a common law cause of action, such as intrusion upon seclusion, on the facts 

alleged, Plaintiff will be given leave to amend his complaint with respect to his First 

Claim for Relief. See Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1135 (noting that liberal policy favoring 

amendments to pleadings should be “applied even more liberally to pro se litigants”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is granted. Plaintiff’s First Claim for 

Relief of his Amended Complaint (Doc. 1-1) is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff 

may file an amended complaint by March 14, 2012. 

Dated this 21st day of February, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00157-NVW Document 11 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 2