Anthony Heras v. Nelnet, Inc., et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 12

C.D. Cal.September 1, 2016

B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15028249.2 1 DEFENDANT NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Jonathan C. Sandler (State Bar No. 227532) JSandler@bhfs.com BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.500.4600 Facsimile: 310.500.4602 Attorneys for Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC, erroneously named as NELNET, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY HERAS, Plaintiff, v. NELNET, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION LLC, and EQUIFAX, INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-06388-FMO (PLAx) DEFENDANT, NELNET, SERVICING, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b) (6), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(e) [Filed concurrently with the Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e); Declaration of Jonathan C. Sandler; and [Proposed] Order] Date: October 6, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22, 5th Floor Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on October 6, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Fernando M. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:101 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15028249.2 2 DEFENDANT NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Olguin, United States District Court Judge, in Courtroom 22, 5nd Floor of the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC (“Nelnet”), erroneously named as Nelnet, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, will move to dismiss the claims asserted by plaintiff Anthony Heras (“Plaintiff”). Defendant’s Motion is brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(e) on the grounds that this Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Complaint”) fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted and alternatively, on the grounds that the defendants are entitled to a more definitive statement. This Motion is based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Jonathan C. Sandler, the documentation on file and such other argument of counsel as the Court may wish to consider. As Plaintiff is in pro per, a meet and confer is not required pursuant to L.R. 16-12(c). However, counsel for Nelnet did discuss the grounds for dismissing the Complaint with Plaintiff prior to this matter being removed. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jonathan C. Sandler filed concurrently. Dated: September 1, 2016 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP By: /s/ Jonathan C. Sandler JONATHAN C. SANDLER Attorneys for Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC, erroneously named as Nelnet, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:102 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:103 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15028249.2 4 DEFENDANT NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS 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 SERVICE LIST Anthony Heras 3966 W. 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 Phone: 213.570.0170 Email: herasanthony@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff In Pro Per Donald E. Bradley MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Phone: 714.668.2400 714.668.2400 Fax: 714.668.2490 Email: d.bradley@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant TRANSUNION LLC Andrew H. Dubin JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.489.3939 Fax: 213.243.2539 213.243.2539 Email: adubin@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendant EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. Thomas P. Quinn NOKES & QUINN 410 Broadway, Suite 200 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Phone: 949.376.3500 Fax: 949.376.3070 Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX, INC. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:104 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 1 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Jonathan C. Sandler (State Bar No. 227532) JSandler@bhfs.com BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.500.4600 Facsimile: 310.500.4602 Attorneys for Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC, erroneously named as Nelnet, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY HERAS, Plaintiff, v. NELNET, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION LLC, and EQUIFAX, INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-06388-FMO (PLAx) DEFENDANT, NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b) (6), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(e) [Filed concurrently with the Notice of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e); Declaration of Jonathan C. Sandler; and [Proposed] Order] Date: October 6, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22, 5th Floor Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:105 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 009913\0041\15016278.7 i NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................... 2 A. Procedural Background ......................................................................... 2 B. Factual Allegations ............................................................................... 2 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................ 3 IV. THE CASE IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 (B)(6) ................................. 5 A. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed For Failure to State a Claim ..................................................................................................... 5 B. Assuming Arguendo, That The Complaint Purports To Assert An FDCPA Violation, It Fails To State A Claim Against Nelnet Under The Statute Because Plaintiff Has Not And Cannot Allege That It Is A “Debt Collector.” ................................................... 5 V. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD ORDER PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(E) .......... 9 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 10 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:106 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 i NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................... 3, 4 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................. 3 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................. 3 Caione v. Navient Corp., No. 16-0806(NLH/JS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109825 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016) ....................................................................................................... 8 Casault v. Fannie Mae, 915 F.Supp.2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) .................................................... 8 Christie v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings, No. 8:12-cv-01584-ODW(JPRx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5440 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013) ....................................................................................... 7 DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................. 4 Engler v. ReconTrust Co. ., No CV12-1165 CBM (SPx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179950 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013) .................................................................................. 6, 9 Fischer v. Unipac Serv. Corp., 519 N.W.2d 793 (1994) ......................................................................................... 7 Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 6 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:107 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 ii NELNET, SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Jackson v. Nelnet, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-205, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149995 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2011) ...................................................................................................................... 8 Levy-Tatum v. Navient & Sallie Mae Bank, No. 15-3794, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1548 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2016) ..................... 8 Mondonedo v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 07-4059, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25497 (D. Kan. March 25, 2009 ) ..................................................................................................................... 7 Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 4 Obot v. Sallie Mae, No. 13-cv-656A(Sr), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186025 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2013) ....................................................................................................... 8 Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072 (C.D. Cal. 1994) ...................................................................... 4 Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 6 Summit Technology, Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments Co., Inc., 922 F. Supp. 299 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ........................................................................ 4 Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) .................................................................................................... 6 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) .............................................................................................. 6, 7 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F) ............................................................................................. 7 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii) ....................................................................................... 7 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692f .......................................................................................... 6 15 U.S.C. § 1692g ....................................................................................................... 6 28 U.S.C. §1446(a) ..................................................................................................... 2 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. .......................... passim Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:108 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 iii NELNET, SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) ..................................................................... 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ....................................................... 1, 3, 4, 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) ................................................................ 1, 4, 9 Other Authorities S.Rep. No. 95-382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1977 WL 16047 .................................................................... 7 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:109 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 1 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC (“Nelnet”), erroneously named as Nelnet, Inc., moves to dismiss the Complaint because plaintiff Anthony Heras (“Plaintiff”) has failed to state any plausible claims for relief against it. In a flawed attempt to turn hardship into profit, Plaintiff’s Complaint prays for $2 million dollars in damages, but fails to plead a single coherent cause of action. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has “bad credit” and attempts to shift blame to each of the defendants in this case; nevertheless, his Complaint only sets forth confusing, vague and conclusory allegations without providing sufficient facts to delineate what causes of action, if any, he is attempting to assert against each of the defendants. The pleading is a mishmash of allegations stemming from what is assumed to be a student loan and his request for some documentation or verification of the debt(s). Based on his allegations, it is not clear, among other things, what debt is at issue, whether anything was inaccurately reported, what alleged violations of law occurred, what causes of action he is asserting, when they arose, against whom, or what facts form the basis of his causes of action. It is plausible that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), since he makes brief reference to the statute, but even so, he fails to state a valid claim against Nelnet. At a minimum, Plaintiff does not and cannot allege that Nelnet is a “debt collector” within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, the Court should grant Nelnet’s motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief, without leave to amend. In the alternative, if the Court is not inclined to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court should grant Nelnet’s request for a more definitive statement under Rule 12(e) since Nelnet is unable to properly respond to the Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:110 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 2 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Complaint based on the vague and conclusory allegations contained in the current Complaint. II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background On or about July 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in state court within the County of Los Angeles. On August 25, 2016, counsel for defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), TransUnion LLC (“TransUnion”), and Equifax, Inc. (“Equifax”) removed the matter to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(a) on the basis that Plaintiff’s claim for relief arose under the FDCPA. Additionally, as the United States is a defendant, the removal papers reference that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the case. As Plaintiff is in pro per, a meet and confer is not required. However, counsel for Nelnet did discuss the grounds for dismissing the Complaint with Plaintiff prior to this matter being removed. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jonathan C. Sandler. B. Factual Allegations Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to assert claims against Nelnet, the U.S. Department of Education, Experian, Transunion and Equifax. Although his allegations are factually deficient, it appears that Plaintiff is claiming that he has a “debt” which has negatively impacted his credit report. Plaintiff is claiming that all of the defendants are somehow at fault for the negative information on his credit report. In regard to Nelnet, Plaintiff asserts bare and conclusory allegations that Nelnet supposedly failed to provide some documentation requested by Plaintiff. See, e.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 8-15. Based on the allegations in the Complaint it is difficult or impossible to even discern the context in which the requests were made to Nelnet and how Nelnet supposedly responded to those requests (see e.g., Complaint, ¶ 17 (vaguely alleging that “Nelnet either refused to provide such Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:111 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 3 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 requested information or was unable to do so.”). Plaintiff also provides little or no factual allegations regarding his relationship with Nelnet, the “debt” at issue or what was supposedly reported to any credit bureaus. In regard to the three credit bureau defendants, Plaintiff alleges that they are at fault because they supposedly have an obligation to “report only information that is 100% verifiable” and have “[r]efuse[d] to ask Nelnet to validate the accounts.” See Complaint, ¶¶ 7, 20. Plaintiff also alleges that the Department of Education is somehow at fault because it has not taken action after Plaintiff contacted it regarding Nelnet and “has not taken these matters seriously.” Complaint, ¶ 19. None of these allegations are pled in the context of a cause of action against any of the defendants. The Complaint fails to identify any specific causes of action and only makes vague and conclusory references to violation of the FDCPA. See Complaint, ¶ 16, 20. Based on his claims, Plaintiff seeks to cover $2,000,000 in damages. Complaint. ¶ 20. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Under Rule 8(a)(2), the plaintiff is required only to set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(citation omitted). A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss only if, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it contains enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:112 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 4 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citation omitted). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts as true all facts alleged in the complaint, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2009). “However, a court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences, unwarranted deductions of fact, or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations.” Summit Technology, Inc. v. High-Line Medical Instruments Co., Inc., 922 F. Supp. 299, 304 (C.D. Cal. 1996)(citing Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1031 (1981)(citation omitted). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). Where a motion to dismiss is granted, “leave to amend should be granted ‘unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.’” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)). In other words, where leave to amend would be futile, the Court may deny leave to amend. See Desoto, 957 F.2d at 658 (citation omitted). As an alternative, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “A Rule 12(e) motion is proper only where the complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot ascertain the nature of the claim being asserted.” Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:113 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 5 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994)(citation omitted). IV. THE CASE IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 (B)(6) A. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed For Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it lacks any cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support any cognizable legal theory. Indeed, the Complaint encompasses a mass of allegations lumped together without any delineated causes of action or adequate facts to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff simply asserts conclusory allegations, without any context throughout the Complaint, that he requested certain documentation from Nelnet, supposedly did not receive the documentation, and suffers negative credit reporting. The Complaint is almost completely devoid of any factual allegations, including without limitation, when each and every alleged wrongful act or violation of the law occurred, and precisely how each defendant engaged in a wrongful act or violated the law, what causes of action are being alleged, and what relief is tied to what alleged acts. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. B. Assuming Arguendo, That The Complaint Purports To Assert An FDCPA Violation, It Fails To State A Claim Against Nelnet Under The Statute Because Plaintiff Has Not And Cannot Allege That It Is A “Debt Collector.” Although it is difficult to discern what causes of action Plaintiff intends to assert, Nelnet conjectures that Plaintiff is attempting to assert a cause of action under the FDCPA, because Plaintiff inserted a couple of references to that statute in the Complaint. See Complaint, ¶¶ 16, 20. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against Nelnet under the FDCPA. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute that regulates the conduct of debt Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:114 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 6 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 collectors. Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2011). The purpose of the FDCPA is to “eliminate abusive debt collective practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). “To state a cause of action under the [FDCPA], Plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a consumer within the meaning of the FDCPA (2) the debt arises out of a transaction entered into for personal purposes; (3) the defendant is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA and (4) the defendant violated one of the provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a- 1692o.” Engler v. ReconTrust Co., No CV12-1165 CBM (SPx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179950, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013). The FDCPA restricts debt collectors from making false or misleading representations or using unfair collection methods. 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692f. Debt collectors must also provide certain written information concerning the debt collection in accordance with the specific timelines set forth in the statute. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. The FDCPA defines a “debt collector” as follows: any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Under the first part of Section 1692a(6), a plaintiff must allege that the “principal purpose” of the entity’s business is “debt collection” and it is “insufficient to state a claim under the FDCPA” to allege that debt collection is only “some part” of the entity’s business. Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1208-09 (9th Cir. 2013). The statute has exemptions from the definition of “debt collector” including Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:115 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 7 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 where the case “concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(iii). Indeed, the legislative history of section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA provides that “[t]he primary persons intended to be covered are independent debt collectors” and not intended to “cover …. the collection of debts, such as mortgages and student loans, by persons who originated such loans; mortgage service companies and others who service outstanding debts for others, so long as the debts were not in default when taken for servicing”. S.Rep. No. 95-382, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1697-98, 1977 WL 16047. “Under this so-called default exception [15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)], courts have consistently held that agencies such as Sallie Mae that are involved in the administration and servicing of student loans are not ‘debt collectors.’” Mondonedo v. Sallie Mae, Inc., No. 07-4059, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25497, at *3 n.28 (D. Kan. March 25, 2009 )(citations in footnote omitted). Thus, “[a]n entity that does not own the loan but merely ‘services’ the loan is treated as a ‘creditor’ and generally is not subjected to the FDCPA.” Id., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25497, at *3 (citing Johnson v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp., 102 Fed. Appx. 484, 487 (7th Cir. 2004)); see also Fischer v. Unipac Serv. Corp., 519 N.W.2d 793, 800 (1994)(noting that “collection efforts by holders of federally insured student loans or their servicing companies are simply not the kind of activity Congress intended to regulate.”)(citation omitted); cf. Christie v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings, No. 8:12-cv-01584-ODW(JPRx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5440, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2013)(noting “[t]he law is well-settled that creditors, mortgagors, and mortgage servicing companies are not debt collectors and are statutorily exempt from liability under the FDCPA”; and that Specialized Loan Servicing, “as a loan servicer-is statutorily exempt from the FDCPA.”). In sum, “[r]elevant facts” under the FDCPA to determine whether one is a “debt collector” “include: (1) whether the debt was in default before the loans were serviced, (2) whether the collector was a debt collector by trade and (3) whether the person Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:116 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 8 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 regularly collected debts.” Caione v. Navient Corp., No. 16-0806(NLH/JS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109825, at *4 n.4 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016)(citation omitted). Courts regularly dismiss FDCPA claims where the plaintiff fails to properly allege that the subject defendant is a “debt collector” within the meaning of the statute. See, e.g., Casault v. Fannie Mae, 915 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1126 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012)(granting a motion to dismiss where plaintiffs failed to allege “any facts that show how Servicer Defendants were acting in a debt collecting capacity within the meaning of the FDCPA.”); Levy-Tatum v. Navient & Sallie Mae Bank, No. 15-3794, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1548, at *21 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2016) (dismissing Plaintiff’s claim under the FDCPA against Navient, a loan servicer, where Plaintiff “fail[ed] to include any factual assertions to establish that Navient is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA” and also failed to plead “facts to demonstrate that Navient is a debt collector by trade, or that the loan was in default during the relevant time period for this action.”); Obot v. Sallie Mae, No. 13-cv-656A(Sr), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186025, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2013) (noting that the FDCPA “requires factual allegations plausibly suggesting that defendant is a debt collector”). Here, the Complaint is completely devoid of any factual allegations whatsoever that Nelnet is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, that Nelnet took any actions to even attempt to collect a debt or that the loan was in “default” during any relevant period. In fact, Nelnet is a loan servicer (for student loans). Another district court has even determined that Nelnet is not a “debt collector” under the meaning of the FDCPA. See, e.g., Jackson v. Nelnet, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-205, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149995, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2011)(agreeing with Nelnet that it “would not be a debt collector under the FDCPA” where Nelnet asserted that “it was the servicer of the loans and this began prior to any alleged default.”). Furthermore, even if Nelnet is a “debt collector” under the meaning of the FDCPA, which it is not, Plaintiff only sets forth conclusory allegations and fails to Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:117 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 9 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 allege any sufficient facts that Nelnet violated any requirements within the purview of the statute. See, e.g., Engler, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179950, at *22 (finding that allegation that defendant “did not validate the subject debt” was a “conclusory legal statement that the Court does not accept as an allegation of fact.”)(citation omitted). Plaintiff has not established a debt that he owes or any debt collection activity, prohibited or otherwise, in which Nelnet allegedly engaged. Accordingly, because Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against Nelnet under the FDCPA (or any other cause of action), and because Nelnet is not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, the Court should dismiss the Complaint as to Nelnet with prejudice. V. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD ORDER PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(E). As discussed above, Nelnet contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety, without leave to amend. Nevertheless, if the Court is not inclined to do so, Nelnet requests, in the alternative, that this Court grant defendant’s Rule 12(e) request for a more definite statement since it cannot ascertain the claims against it. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth sufficient factual allegations including when and how any violation of law occurred by each of the distinct defendants. Because the Complaint is confusing and rife with ambiguities, Nelnet is unable to frame a proper response to the allegations against it. Nelnet is left to guess what causes of actions Plaintiff is attempting to assert against it (as opposed to other defendants) and what factual allegations would apply to any possible causes of action. Without a more definite statement of the claims, the parties and court will be unable to analyze whether this matter is subject to a dispositive motion. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:118 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016278.7 10 NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 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 VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Nelnet requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend. Dated: September 1, 2016 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP By: /s/Jonathan C. Sandler JONATHAN C. SANDLER Attorneys for Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC, erroneously named as Nelnet, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:119 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:120 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 2 NELNET, INC.'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 2:16-CV-06388-FMO 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 SERVICE LIST Anthony Heras 3966 W. 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 Phone: 213.570.0170 Email: herasanthony@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff In Pro Per Donald E. Bradley MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Phone: 714.668.2400 714.668.2400 Fax: 714.668.2490 Email: d.bradley@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant TRANSUNION LLC Andrew H. Dubin JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.489.3939 Fax: 213.243.2539 213.243.2539 Email: adubin@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendant EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. Thomas P. Quinn NOKES & QUINN 410 Broadway, Suite 200 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Phone: 949.376.3500 Fax: 949.376.3070 Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX, INC. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-1 Filed 09/01/16 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:121 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016420.2 1 DECLARATION OF J. SANDLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Jonathan C. Sandler (State Bar No. 227532) JSandler@bhfs.com BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.500.4600 Facsimile: 310.500.4602 Attorneys for Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC erroneously named as NELNET, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY HERAS, Plaintiff, v. NELNET, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION LLC, and EQUIFAX, INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-06388-FMO (PLAx) DECLARATION OF JONATHAN C. SANDLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e) [Filed concurrently with the Notice of Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e); Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Motion to Dismiss and [Proposed] Order] Date: October 6, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22, 5th Floor Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin I, Jonathan C. Sandler, declare as follows: 1. I am a shareholder at the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC (“NELNET" and/or “Defendant”), which I am informed and believe was erroneously named as Nelnet, Inc. I am licensed to practice law in the state of California and am admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. I Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-2 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:122 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016420.2 2 DECLARATION OF J. SANDLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 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 have personal knowledge of the facts in this declaration, except as to those matters that are based on information and belief, which matters I believe to be true. If called as a witness, I could testify competently to these facts. I make this declaration in support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. 2. On August 19, 2016, I spoke with the Plaintiff Anthony Heras regarding his complaint while the matter was still venued in state court. During the conversation, we discussed that if he did not amend the complaint, I would challenge the complaint with a demurrer. During the conversation, we discussed the basis for demurrer. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the e-mail chain with the Plaintiff on the same date, including my confirming e-mail, his response for clarification, and my response to his response. 4. On information and belief, Mr. Heras did not amend the Complaint prior to the time the matter was removed. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed the 1st day of September, 2016 at Los Angeles, California. /s/ Jonathan C. Sandler Jonathan C. Sandler Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-2 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:123 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-2 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:124 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-2 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:125 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-2 Filed 09/01/16 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:126 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-2 Filed 09/01/16 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:127 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016420.2 2 DECLARATION OF J. SANDLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 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 SERVICE LIST Anthony Heras 3966 W. 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 Phone: 213.570.0170 Email: herasanthony@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff In Pro Per Donald E. Bradley MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Phone: 714.668.2400 714.668.2400 Fax: 714.668.2490 Email: d.bradley@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant TRANSUNION LLC Andrew H. Dubin JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.489.3939 Fax: 213.243.2539 213.243.2539 Email: adubin@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendant EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. Thomas P. Quinn NOKES & QUINN 410 Broadway, Suite 200 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Phone: 949.376.3500 Fax: 949.376.3070 Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX, INC. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-2 Filed 09/01/16 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:128 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016465.2 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY HERAS, Plaintiff, v. NELNET, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION LLC, and EQUIFAX, INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-06388-FMO (PLAx) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, NELNET, SERVICING, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b) (6) and 12(e) Date: October 6, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 22, 5th Floor Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-3 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:129 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016465.2 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS 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 Defendant NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S ("Defendant"), erroneously named as Nelnet, Inc., Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(e) came before the Court for hearing on October 6, 2016 upon duly noticed motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. In the alternative, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 12(e), that Plaintiff is ordered to provide a more definite Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: , 2016 Fernando M. Olguin United States District Judge Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-3 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:130 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-3 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:131 B R O W N ST E IN H Y A T T F A R B E R S C H R E C K , L L P 20 49 C en tu ry P ar k E as t, S ui te 3 55 0 L os A ng el es , C A 9 00 67 009913\0041\15016465.2 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NELNET SERVICING, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS 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 SERVICE LIST Anthony Heras 3966 W. 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 Phone: 213.570.0170 Email: herasanthony@aol.com Attorneys for Plaintiff In Pro Per Donald E. Bradley MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Phone: 714.668.2400 714.668.2400 Fax: 714.668.2490 Email: d.bradley@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant TRANSUNION LLC Andrew H. Dubin JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.489.3939 Fax: 213.243.2539 213.243.2539 Email: adubin@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendant EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. Thomas P. Quinn NOKES & QUINN 410 Broadway, Suite 200 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Phone: 949.376.3500 Fax: 949.376.3070 Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX, INC. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 13-3 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:132