Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180308_0000299.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:19:39+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Lewis v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc.
Lewis v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc.
The Rule 12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to “assume the truth of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). Having assumed that truth, the dispositive inquiry then usually becomes “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This analysis assumes that the plaintiff's legal theory is recognized in law and that the only salient question is whether the asserted facts state a claim under that theory. However, some Rule 12(b)(6) motions raise the argument that “a legal theory [is] not cognizable as a matter of law.” Golan v. Ashcroft, 310 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1217 (D. Colo. 2004), aff'd sub nom. Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007). That standard applies here.
Defendant's primary argument is that Plaintiffs cannot plead a negligence claim because they cannot establish a duty of care to, as Plaintiffs phrase it, “act reasonably when collecting an alleged debt . . . including the means and methods for contacting [debtors].” (ECF No. 25 ¶ 46.) Defendant has cited cases from the Colorado Court of Appeals, from this District, and from other jurisdictions. (ECF No. 34 at 4-7.) Plaintiffs have cited supposedly contrary federal district court cases not from this District. (ECF No. 42 at 3-4.) In other words, no party has cited anything controlling. Nor is any of the cited authority particularly helpful, as it largely deals with situations distinct from telephone harassment by debt collectors, or tort theories Plaintiffs have not pleaded (such as invasion of privacy).
The elements of a negligence claim consist of the existence of a legal duty by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty by the defendant, injury to the plaintiff, and a sufficient causal relationship between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injuries. A negligence claim will fail if it is predicated on circumstances for which the law imposes no duty of care upon the defendant. . . . The initial question in any negligence action, therefore, is whether the defendant owed a legal duty to protect the plaintiff against injury. The issue of legal duty is a question of law to be determined by the court.
A duty of reasonable care arises when there is a foreseeable risk of injury to others from a defendant's failure to take protective action to prevent the injury. While foreseeability is a prime factor in the duty calculus, a court also must weigh other factors, including the social utility of the defendant's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the harm caused to the plaintiff, the practical consequences of placing such a burden on the defendant, and any additional elements disclosed by the particular circumstances of the case.
Connes v. Molalla Transp. Sys., Inc., 831 P.2d 1316, 1320 (Colo. 1992) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs have not attempted to explain why they believe the Colorado Supreme Court would apply this analysis and conclude that debt collectors have a duty of care, enforceable through a negligence claim, encompassing the choice to engage in numerous harassing phone calls. To be sure, there may be other tort theories that encompass this alleged course of conduct, but Plaintiffs have given the Court no basis to think that the Colorado Supreme Court would approve a negligence cause of action based on Plaintiffs' allegations.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.