Source: http://mo.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180319_0000480.EMO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:02:47+00:00

Document:
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 4]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
Plaintiff filed this action in the Associate Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri alleging that Defendant violated Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by filing a lawsuit in violation of an Arbitration Agreement and Waiver of Jury Trial entered into by the parties. Defendant removed the matter to this Court based on the Court's federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Under this agreement, both lender and I are voluntarily waiving any right to a jury or judge trial of all claims and disputes covered by this arbitration agreement and waiver of jury trial (“this Arbitration Agreement”) to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Instead of pursuing arbitration, either Lender or I also have the option to bring a lawsuit in court to seek to recover the monetary jurisdictional limit of a small claims or equivalent court in my state (including costs and attorneys' fees), provided that no relief other than such recovery is requested in such lawsuit.
Plaintiff alleges that the Missouri jurisdictional small claims amount is $5, 000, that Defendant's suit seeks the sum of $2, 676.75 plus interest. Plaintiff further alleges that the filing of the lawsuit by Defendant on behalf of One Main violates the Arbitration Agreement, therefore, Defendant violated the FDCPA by taking legal action that cannot be taken.
On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the complaint and construes all reasonable inferences arising therefrom most favorably to the plaintiff. Hager v. Ark. Dep't of Health, 735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Gross v. Weber, 186 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir. 1999)). The Court, however, need not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations, Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1999), or legal conclusions that plaintiffs draw from the facts pled. Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, the Court ordinarily does not consider matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). The Court may, however, consider exhibits attached to the complaint and documents that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings, Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 697 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003), and may also consider public records, Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007).

References: § 1331
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.