§Why CasetextPricing

Obduskey v. Wells Fargo et al

MOTION to Dismiss

47 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,459 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,381 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

    130 F.3d 1381 (10th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,548 times
    Holding failure to address district court's alternative ground for granting summary judgment compelled affirmance

  4. Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc.

    62 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2003)   Cited 237 times
    Finding that a developer's widespread advertisements of untrue facts had a significant public impact

  5. Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc.

    711 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2013)   Cited 144 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that § 1692e is violated where "the debt collector knows of the dispute and elects to report it to a [Credit Reporting Agency]"

  6. Alpine Bank v. Hubbell

    555 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 148 times
    Finding no public impact where challenged statements were made to all potential borrowers but there was no evidence they impacted anyone beyond plaintiffs

  7. Hall v. Walter

    969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998)   Cited 186 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when certain requirements are met, non-consumers have standing to maintain privatecause of action under Colorado Consumer Protection Act

  8. Coors Brewing Co. v. Floyd

    978 P.2d 663 (Colo. 1999)   Cited 177 times
    Holding that extreme and outrageous conduct is that which is "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

  9. Coors v. Security Life of Denver Ins. Co.

    112 P.3d 59 (Colo. 2005)   Cited 138 times
    Finding an impact on less than one percent of the company's consuming public was not sufficiently significant to meet CCPA's requirements

  10. Henson v. Bank of Am.

    935 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Colo. 2013)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that a deceptive trade practice under § 6-1-105 requires a showing that defendant knowingly made a false representation

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,620 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1692 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

    15 U.S.C. § 1692   Cited 14,989 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Finding that abusive debt-collection practices lead to "personal bankruptcies," "marital instability," "loss of jobs," and "invasions of individual privacy"

  13. Section 1692k - Civil liability

    15 U.S.C. § 1692k   Cited 6,108 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding debt collectors civilly liable for illicit debt collection practices

  14. Section 1692g - Validation of debts

    15 U.S.C. § 1692g   Cited 3,438 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for disputing a debt

  15. Section 1692d - Harassment or abuse

    15 U.S.C. § 1692d   Cited 1,897 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Limiting debt collectors’ ability to use threats of violence, publicize lists of consumers allegedly refusing to pay debts, cause a telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, or engage someone in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously

  16. Section 1692c - Communication in connection with debt collection

    15 U.S.C. § 1692c   Cited 1,631 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Regulating communications with consumers

  17. Section 2614 - Jurisdiction of courts; limitations

    12 U.S.C. § 2614   Cited 1,260 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Granting RESPA jurisdiction to federal district courts and "any other court of competent jurisdiction"

  18. Section 13-80-102 - General limitation of actions - two years

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102   Cited 407 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing the general limitation for personal injury claims in Colorado is two years from when the action accrues

  19. Section 13-80-103 - General limitation of actions - one year

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103   Cited 91 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that "[a]ll actions for any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes" be commenced within one year after the action accrues

  20. Section 13-80-103.5 - General limitation of actions - six years

    Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.5   Cited 76 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Applying six-year statute of limitations to "[a]ll actions to recover a liquidated debt or an unliquidated, determinable amount of money due"