Filed June 15, 2017
Case 2:17-cv-02600-WB Document 3-2 Filed 06/15/17 Page 6 of 10 3 held to less stringent standards, “a pro se plaintiff is not absolved from complying with Twombly and the federal pleading requirements merely because s/he precedes pro se.” Thakar v. Tan, 372 F. App'x 325, 328 (3d Cir. 2010). B. The FDCPA Does Not Apply To First Premier Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because, as a matter of law, as the FDCPA does not apply to First Premier.
Filed March 20, 2015
“‘A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Thakar v. Tan, 372 Fed. Appx. 325, 328 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). This Court has stated that “in evaluating a pleading’s sufficiency in relation to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a ‘District Court must accept all of [a pleading's] well-pleaded facts as true’ and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, ‘but may disregard any legal conclusions[,]’ in determining whether the plaintiff has a ‘plausible claim for relief.