United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
CYNTHIA REED EDDY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
civil action was removed to this court from the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on March 5,
2019. Plaintiff Patricia Crawley brings the present action
against Defendant Cach, LLC for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
1692-1692p (“FDCPA”) and related state law
claims. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
pending before the court is a motion by Defendant to dismiss
the claims against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 4).
For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is
23, 2015, Defendant filed a complaint in civil action in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
against Plaintiff involving a consumer loan with the original
creditor of HSBC Consumer Lending, USA, Inc.
(“HSBC”) alleging a breach of contract and
demanded judgment in the amount of $3, 600.26. Compl. (ECF
No. 1-2) at ¶¶ 16-18. Defendant purchased the
alleged delinquent account from Springleaf Financial, who had
previously acquired the account from HSBC. Id. at
¶ 19. On preliminary objections to the state court
action, the court dismissed the action with prejudice on
January 27, 2016. Id. at ¶ 21.
January 8, 2018, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter seeking
payment from Plaintiff for the $3, 600.26 obligation.
Id. at ¶ 25. On February 22, 2018, Defendant
filed a second lawsuit in magisterial court in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania demanding payment for the same
obligation. Id. at ¶ 31. On March 5, 2018,
counsel for Plaintiff entered an appearance for Plaintiff and
gave notice of Plaintiff's intention to present a defense
at the hearing. Id. at ¶ 35. On March 6, 2018,
Defendant sent another letter directly to Plaintiff urging
payment and settlement of the claim and if accepted,
Defendant would take all steps necessary to discontinue the
magisterial court lawsuit. Id. at ¶ 36. On
March 7, 2018, the court notified Defendant's counsel of
Plaintiff's intention to defend the claim and Defendant
thereafter withdrew the claim. Id. at ¶¶
37-38. On or about March 9, 2018, the magisterial court
issued a disposition showing the complaint was
“dismissed without prejudice.” Id. at
¶ 39. Plaintiff claims that the significance of the case
being dismissed without prejudice is that Defendant retains a
right to refile the action at a later date. Id. at
¶ 40. Plaintiff also claims that during this entire
time, she was represented by counsel and Defendant had actual
knowledge that she was represented by the same counsel that
represents here in this case, yet chose to communicate
directly with Plaintiff in violation of, inter alia,
alleges that Defendant's conduct has violated the FDCPA
(Count I); Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 C.S. § 201-1, et seq.
(“UTPCPL”) (Count II); Pennsylvania Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act, 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2270.1,
et seq. (“FCEUA”) (Count III); and
constitutes an invasion of privacy under Pennsylvania common
law (Count IV). Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
applicable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) is well-settled. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a “short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule
12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A complaint that merely alleges entitlement to
relief, without alleging facts that show entitlement, must be
dismissed. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d
203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009). This “‘does not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage,' but
instead ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence
of' the necessary elements.” Phillips v. Cnty.
of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Nevertheless, the court
need not accept as true “unsupported conclusions and
unwarranted inferences, ” Doug Grant, Inc. v. Great
Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, 183-84 (3d Cir. 2000),
or the plaintiff's “bald assertions” or
“legal conclusions.” Morse v. Lower Merion
Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).
a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must provide more
than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. A “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” Id. (citing
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and
“sufficient to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Facial plausibility exists “when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement, ” but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. . . .
Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely
consistent with” a defendant's liability, it
“stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556)
(internal citations omitted).
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court's role is
limited to determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to
offer evidence in support of his claims. See Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The court does not
consider whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail.
Id. A defendant bears the burden of establishing
that a plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim.
Gould Elecs. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d