Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00010/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00010-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Darren Marley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PYOD, LLC; Guglielmo & Associates,

PLLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-00010-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 8), plaintiff’s motion to

strike defendant Guglielmo & Associates, PLLC’s (“Guglielmo”) motion to dismiss (doc. 9)

and defendants’ response (doc. 10). Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his motion to

strike or a response to the motion to dismiss and the time for doing so has expired.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a

claim. Rather than respond to the motion, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendants’

motion to dismiss, arguing that Guglielmo cannot represent itself in a pro se capacity. But

Guglielmo is not representing itself pro se. It is represented by attorney Christopher

Kalabus, a lawyer within the firm of Guglielmo & Associates. Plaintiff’s motion to strike

is DENIED (doc. 9).

Plaintiff did not respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss and his failure to do so may

Case 2:13-cv-00010-FJM Document 12 Filed 03/06/13 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 -

be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion and we may dispose of the motion

summarily. LRCiv 7.2(i). 

Plaintiff asserts four causes of action in his complaint. In count 1, he alleges that

defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681b, by

obtaining his consumer credit report. But the FCRA specifically authorizes credit inquiries

for the purpose of “review or collection of an account.” Id. § 1681b(a)(3)(A). Plaintiff

acknowledges that defendants are attempting to collect on an account. Compl. ¶ 8.

Therefore, defendants were authorized to obtain plaintiff’s credit report. Count 1 is

dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

In count 2, plaintiff asserts that defendants failed to respond to his demand for

validation as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §

1692g(b). A consumer may seek verification of the debt within 30 days of the initial written

notice. “[V]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming

in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed.”

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff acknowledges in his complaint that he received his initial notice letter

regarding the debt in June, 2012. Compl. ¶ 7. He also acknowledges that he did not make

a request for validation until December 5, 2012, well outside the 30 days provided in the Act.

Id. ¶ 9. In addition, various documents appended to plaintiff’s complaint, including the state

court complaint, the affidavit of indebtedness, and affidavit of transfer, provide the

information required under the FDCPA. Count 2 is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff asserts a claim for malicious prosecution in count 3 and abuse of process in

count 4, related to a legal proceeding filed by defendants in state court to collect the debt. 

Plaintiff fails to allege that the underlying action has been terminated in his favor—an

essential element of a malicious prosecution claim. See Compl. ¶ 27 (indicating that the state

court action is still pending). Therefore, count 3 fails to state a claim. 

A claim for abuse of process requires a showing of (1) an ulterior, improper purpose

and (2) a “wilful act in the use of judicial process not proper in the regular conduct of the

Case 2:13-cv-00010-FJM Document 12 Filed 03/06/13 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 -

proceeding.” Bird v. Rothman, 128 Ariz. 599, 602, 627 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Ct. App. 1981).

Plaintiff alleges generally that defendants filed the state court action for “an ulterior

purpose,” and that the “action filed contained materially false information intended to

intimidate, harass, defame, and retaliate.” Compl. ¶ 31. These broad, conclusory statements

are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Moreover, collection of an alleged unpaid

debt is a proper purpose for judicial process. “[T]here is no liability when the defendant has

done nothing more than legitimately utilize the process for its authorized purpose, even

though with bad intentions.” Nienstedt v. Wetzel, 133 Ariz. 348, 353, 651 P.2d 876, 881 (Ct.

App. 1982). Count 4 is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motion to strike (doc. 9).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 8).

Because an amendment cannot save this complaint, it is ordered that this action is dismissed

with prejudice. The clerk shall enter final judgment.

We urge plaintiff to seek the advice of counsel. If he does not have a lawyer, he may

wish to call the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-

257-4434.

DATED this 5th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-00010-FJM Document 12 Filed 03/06/13 Page 3 of 3