Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02382/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02382-0/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 

Beverly James, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Diversified Consultants, Inc., 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-02382-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9). The time to file a 

response expired on December 21, 2015, and Plaintiff has failed to file a response. 

LRCiv 7.2(c). A party that fails to respond to a motion may be deemed to consent to 

granting of the motion and allow the Court to dispose of the motion summarily. LRCiv 

7.2(i). Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, the Complaint 

could be dismissed under Rule 7.2(i) on those grounds alone. 

However, the Court has considered Defendant’s Motion, and the Motion will be 

granted on its merits pursuant to Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for the reasons stated in the Motion. First, the Complaint (see Doc. 1-1 at 2) 

does not contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim under the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Under § 1692g(b), if a consumer 

properly notifies a debt collector that the debt in question is disputed, the debt collector 

“shall cease collection” until it provides verification of the debt. The Complaint does not 

specify any way in which Defendant violated this mandate to “cease collection.” The 

Case 2:15-cv-02382-NVW Document 11 Filed 12/29/15 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 

allegation that Defendant failed to verify the debt does not, by itself, give rise to a claim 

under § 1692g(b). See Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 940 (9th Cir. 

2007). Second, the Complaint does not advance a cognizable theory under the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, because the Act does not provide a private cause 

of action. See Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co., 483 F.2d 279, 280 (9th Cir. 1973). Because 

Plaintiff fails to state any claims upon which relief could be granted, the Complaint will 

be dismissed. 

Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and has not filed 

an amended complaint within the timeline set forth in the Court’s prior order (Doc. 7). 

However, these omissions are viewed with leniency because Plaintiff is pro se, has not 

shown bad faith, and has not yet amended the Complaint at all. Moreover, although 

amending the Federal Trade Commission Act claim would be futile, an amendment to the 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim might cure the deficiencies identified in the 

Motion to Dismiss. Thus, leave to amend will be granted, but only once, and only as to 

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is 

granted. Plaintiff’s claim under the Federal Trade Commission Act is dismissed with 

prejudice. The Complaint is otherwise dismissed with leave to amend as set forth below. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by 

January 12, 2016, in which any new allegations must pertain to the circumstances giving 

rise to Plaintiff’s claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If by that date 

Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, this action will be dismissed with prejudice. 

 Dated this 29th day of December, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02382-NVW Document 11 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 2