United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Rivera sued Franklin Collection Services, Inc.
(“Franklin”), alleging that Franklin violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) when
it sent her a debt collection letter containing a settlement
offer and advising her to consult an attorney. Franklin has
filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court now grants for the
around March 29, 2016, Franklin, a debt collector, sent a
letter to Rivera in an attempt to collect on a debt. (Compl.
¶¶ 5, 9.) The letter, which Plaintiff attached to
her Complaint, reads in part:
This account has been placed with our office for collection.
You have an outstanding balance of $1950.37 owed to AT&T.
In an effort to help you resolve this matter we agree to
offer you a settlement of $1365.26. To accept this offer
please send payment of $1365.26. If you are not paying this
account, call (888) 315-0912 for other available options, or
contact your attorney regarding our potential remedies, and
I intend to report this account on your credit history after
(30) thirty days of you receiving this notice.
(Id. Ex. A [hereinafter “Collection
alleges that this language was “threatening and
coercive and was made with the intent of scaring Plaintiff
into making payment.” (Id. ¶ 12.) She
further claims that “[t]his abusive language caused
Plaintiff to become extremely upset and disheartened due to
the extremely difficult financial struggle she is currently
enduring.” (Id. ¶ 13.)
February 10, 2017, Rivera filed her Complaint against
Franklin, alleging that Franklin violated numerous provisions
of the FDCPA.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a
district court must accept as true all well-pleaded
allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the non-moving party. See Bd. of Trs. of Bricklayers
& Allied Craftsmen Local 6 of N.J. Welfare Fund v.
Wettlin Assocs., 237 F.3d 270, 272 (3d Cir. 2001). A
court need not, however, credit “bald assertions”
or “legal conclusions” when deciding a motion to
dismiss. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d
902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
allegations [in a complaint] must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must include “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. at 570. Although the federal rules
impose no probability requirement at the pleading stage, a
plaintiff must present “enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of
the necessary element[s]” of a cause of action.
Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d
Cir. 2008). “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.” Iqbal, ...