Summary
dismissing a claim under 1692f's catch-all provision, but permitting a claim under 1692f to go forward, because "to the extent a plaintiff alleges how that conduct is unfair or unconscionable under the enumerated subsections of § 1692f, he may maintain claims for violations of both § 1692f and other provisions of the FDCPA"
Summary of this case from Cramer v. Equifax Info. Servs.Opinion
2:14-cv-00854-SGC
08-06-2015
ARLANDER TAYLOR Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
On July 15, 2015, the magistrate judge filed her report and recommendation, recommending that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and that several counts in the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed in accordance with the plaintiff's agreement to withdraw those counts. (Doc. 37.) No objections to the report and recommendation were filed by either party. The undersigned was then randomly drawn to review the report and recommendation.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that the report is due to be and hereby is ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is hereby GRANTED as to Counts IV (15 U.S.C § 1692e(5)), VIII (15 U.S.C. § 1692f), and XI (invasion of privacy) of the amended complaint, and DENIED as to Counts I (15 U.S.C. § 1692d) and IX (15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1)) of the amended complaint. Counts VII (15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11), X (15 U.S.C. § 1692g), and XV (abuse of process) of the amended complaint are hereby DISMISSED in accordance with the plaintiff's agreement to withdraw those counts. This action is to remain assigned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion and order.
DONE AND ORDERED ON AUGUST 6, 2015.
/s/_________
L. SCOTT COOGLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
160704