United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC.
WILLIAM I. ARBUCKLE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
December 29, 2016, Plaintiff June Taylor
(“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro se
action alleging that Defendant Santander Bank
(“Defendant”) violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Doc.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. (Doc.18). Defendant
filed its Motion, and a corresponding Brief in Support, on
July 6, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed a brief in opposition.
In the absence of a response by Plaintiff, I deem
Defendant's Motion ripe for resolution. For the reasons
explained herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that
Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Doc. 1). The Complaint
filed, however, appeared to be incomplete and was not signed
January 20, 2017, the Court provided Plaintiff with a copy of
its Standing Practice Order in Pro Se Cases. (Doc.
3). This Order provides, in relevant part, that:
If the moving party does file a timely brief in support of
his or her motion, Local Rule 7.6 provides that the party
against whom the motion and brief have been filed must file a
brief in opposition to the moving party's motion,
together with any opposing evidentiary material, such as
affidavits, deposition transcripts, or other documents,
within fourteen (14) days after service of the moving
party's brief on the opposing party.
If the party opposing the motion does not file his or her
brief and any evidentiary material within the 14-day time
frame, Local Rule 7.6 provides that he or she shall be deemed
not to oppose the moving party's motion. The motion may
therefore be granted if: (1) the court finds it meritorious;
or (2) the opposing party fails to comply with Local Rule 7.6
despite being ordered to do so by the court.
(Doc. 3, p. 2).
February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
(Doc. 4). On February 23, 2017, the Court granted
Plaintiff's IFP Motion, but ordered that service of the
Complaint be held in abeyance until Plaintiff filed either a
complete copy of her Complaint or filed an amended complaint.
February 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Exhibit D.” (Doc. 6). Exhibit D appears to be a
letter sent by Plaintiff to Defendant in March of 2015.
Id. There is no Exhibit A, B, or C in the case
April 12, 2017, the Court, once again, instructed Plaintiff
to file a complete copy of her Complaint or an amended
complaint, and was admonished that failure to timely comply
with the Court's Order could result in dismissal of this
case for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 7).
April 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc.
8). Like the original Complaint, Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint was a single page, was not signed, and included a
one-page exhibit-this time a copy of an April 2017 letter
from Defendant addressed to Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff
did not sign her Amended Complaint. Id.
April 27, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file and sign
a second amended complaint. (Doc. 9). The Court also
observed, for Plaintiff's benefit, that her Amended
Complaint did not “allege sufficient facts to state a
legal claim of any sort, ” because it contained only
conclusory legal conclusions. Id.
26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc.
10). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is almost
identical to her First Amended Complaint with two notable
exceptions-it is signed, and it includes a complaint
submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a
one-page document entitled “Investigation Report”
attached as exhibits. In her Second Amended Complaint, under
the heading “Nature of the Action” Plaintiff
1. This is a Claim under The Consumer Credit Protection Act
(15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq)[sic], in connection with violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by Santander Bank.
2. Santander Bank violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act by not verifying and validating her mortgage debt as
requested on March 02, 2015[sic].
3. The Defendants wrongful course of conduct is as stated to
be unfair billing, not providing licenses to collect a debt,
and not providing a validate [sic] OMB Control Number under
the Paper reduction Act of 1995.
(Doc. 10, p. 1). Under the heading “Background of
Wrongdoing” Plaintiff states “[s]ee investigation
report[.]” An attached document entitled
“Investigation Report, ” provides that:
On March 02, 2015, Mrs. June Taylor requested that her
Mortgage debt to be validated by Santander Bank. Vice
President Kathleen M. Koslesky, of Santander Bank failed to
validate Mrs. June Taylor's Mortgage debt. Santander
Bank, wrongful course of action is that Santander Bank failed
to validate Mrs. June Taylor's Mortgage debt by not
providing their license to collect a debt, and not providing
a validate[sic] OMB Control Number under the Paper reduction
Act of 1995. By not validating Mrs. June Taylor's
Mortgage Debt, Santander Bank has violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Yom and Hale Paralegal Services
(Doc. 10, p. 7).
to the Second Amended Complaint is a letter from Kathleen M.
Koslesky, the Vice President of Mortgage Operations at
Santander Bank. (Doc. 10, p. 6). The letter was sent in
response to correspondence sent by Plaintiff on March 2,
2016. It provides, in relevant part, that:
In your correspondence you are requesting to be provided with
evidence that you are responsible for this [mortgage] debt,
that Santander cease all adverse credit reporting to the
consumer reporting agencies and a cessation by Santander of
all telephone ...