Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00341/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00341-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA REGINA VIRGEN, No. CIV.S-06-0341 FCD DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

SALLIE MAE, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

This matter came before the court on November 3, 2006, for

hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff,

proceeding pro se, appeared on her own behalf. J. Scott Alexander

and Cathy A. Reynolds appeared on behalf of defendant Edfund, who in

the alternative has moved for a more definite statement. Miriam E.

Hiser appeared on behalf of defendants Sallie Mae, Inc. and General

Revenue Corporation. Having considered all written materials

submitted in connection with the motions, and after hearing oral

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00341-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

argument, defendants’ motions to dismiss will be granted and

plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.

As an initial matter, the court must address the status of

the various defendants named in plaintiff’s complaint. Those

defendants include: Sallie Mae, Edfund, Wendy Doyle, General Revenue

Corporation, Enterprise Recovery Systems, CT Corporation Systems and

North Shore Agency. Defendants Enterprise Recovery Systems and North

Shore Agency were previously dismissed upon plaintiff’s request for

voluntary dismissal. Similarly, at the hearing on the pending

motions plaintiff voluntarily requested the dismissal of defendants

Wendy Doyle and CT Corporation Systems. That request will be

granted. Therefore, the only remaining defendants in this action are

the moving defendants presently before the court: Sallie Mae, General

Revenue Corporation and Edfund. 

Turning to the motions to dismiss, a motion to dismiss

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

tests the sufficiency of the complaint. See North Star Int’l v.

Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal

of the complaint or of any claim within it “can be based on the lack

of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts

alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). See also Robertson

v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the court accepts as true all material allegations in the

complaint and construes those allegations, as well as the reasonable

Case 2:06-cv-00341-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

inferences that can be drawn from them, in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In a case where the plaintiff is pro se, the court has an obligation

to construe the pleadings liberally. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,

1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)(en banc). However, the court’s liberal

interpretation of a pro se complaint may not supply essential

elements of a claim that are not pled. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d

469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

This action arises from plaintiff’s default on a student

loan. As discussed on the record during the hearing, the court has

discerned two causes of action in plaintiff’s complaint. One cause

of action asserts violations of the Higher Education Act (“HEA”) and

the other concerns the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

Any claim which plaintiff seeks to bring under the HEA must

be dismissed with prejudice since it is clear that there is no

private right of action under that Act. Parks School of Business,

Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995)(“There is no

express right of action under the HEA except for suits brought by or

against the Secretary of Education. See 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(2).”);

see also McCulloch v. PNC Bank Inc., 298 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir.

2002)(listing cases that found no express private right of action

under the HEA). Therefore, defendants’ motions will be granted as to

the HEA claim.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00341-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

The motions also will be granted as to plaintiff’s FCRA

claim. Currently, the complaint does little more than reference the

FCRA in general and an assortment of its provisions in particular. 

No discernible, cognizable claim is alleged. On the other hand,

dismissal with leave to amend is in order as to that claim. As

discussed during the hearing on the motions, the court has serious

doubts as to whether plaintiff can allege any cognizable claim

against the defendants under the FCRA, given the apparently

undisputed facts leading to this lawsuit. Nonetheless, considering

plaintiff’s pro se status, her representations at the hearing that

she prepared the initial complaint somewhat hastily, and the court’s

inability to look beyond the pleadings at this early stage, plaintiff

will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint setting

forth her FCRA claim against defendants Sallie Mae, General Revenue

Corporation and Edfund only.

If plaintiff elects to amend her complaint and pursue this

action, she is reminded to set forth the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must

include clear and concise factual allegations describing the events

which underlie her claim. Finally, plaintiff is informed that the

court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make any amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57

(9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the

Case 2:06-cv-00341-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

initial complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. Any amended pleading which

fails to provide the necessary factual description will likely be

dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Wendy Doyle and CT Corporation Systems are

dismissed pursuant to plaintiff’s voluntary request;

2. The pending motions to dismiss are granted with leave

to amend as to the intended FCRA claim against defendants Sallie Mae,

General Revenue Corporation and Edfund only;

3. Plaintiff must file any amended complaint within thirty

(30) days of the date of this order. Plaintiff is forewarned that

the failure to file an amended complaint which complies with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed;

and

4. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for

January 19, 2007, at 11:00 a.m., is vacated and will be re-set as

necessary following the filing of any amended complaint.

DATED: December 20, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\virgen0341.mtd.order

Case 2:06-cv-00341-FCD-DAD Document 32 Filed 12/21/06 Page 5 of 5