United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
J. SCHWAB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Complaint and Brief in Support of same. ECF 20 and
ECF 21. Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition (ECF
23), and Defendant filed a Reply (ECF 24) making the
matter ripe for disposition. After careful consideration of
the arguments the Court will grant in part and deny in part
the Renewed Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set forth
Standard of Review - Rule 12(b)(6)
Rule 12(b)(6), a Complaint must be dismissed for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Detailed factual pleading is not required -
Rule 8(a)(2) calls for a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief -
but a Complaint must set forth sufficient factual allegations
that, taken as true, set forth a plausible claim for relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
plausibility standard does not require a showing of
probability that a claim has merit, Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007), but it does
require that a pleading show “more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Determining the plausibility
of an alleged claim is “a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679
Building upon the landmark United States Supreme Court
decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit explained that
a District Court must undertake the following three steps to
determine the sufficiency of a complaint:
First, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff
must plead to state a claim. Second, the court should
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Finally, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether
they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.
Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209,
212 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
third step requires this Court to consider the specific
nature of the claims presented and to determine whether the
facts pled to substantiate the claims are sufficient to show
a “plausible claim for relief.” Covington v.
Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials,
710 F.3d 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2013); see also
Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d
Cir. 2010) (In reference to third step, “where there
are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume
their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give
rise to an entitlement for relief.”).
adjudicating a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim, the Court must view all of the allegations and facts
in the Complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, and must grant the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences that can be derived therefrom.
Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170, 177 (3d Cir. 2007)
(quoting Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d
Cir. 2005)). However, the Court need not accept inferences or
conclusory allegations that are unsupported by the facts set
forth in the complaint. See Reuben v. U.S. Airways,
Inc., 500 Fed.Appx. 103, 104 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678); Fowler v. UPMC
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009)
(stating that District Courts “must accept all of the
Complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard
any legal conclusions”). “While legal conclusions
can provide the framework of a Complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 664.
Court may not dismiss a Complaint merely because it appears
unlikely or improbable that Plaintiff can prove the facts
alleged or will ultimately prevail on the merits.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563 n.8. Instead, this Court
must ask whether the facts alleged raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the
necessary elements. Id. at 556. Generally speaking,
a Complaint that provides adequate facts to establish
“how, when, and where” will survive a Motion to
Dismiss. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 212.
short, a Motion to Dismiss should be granted if a party fails
to allege facts, which could, if established at trial,
entitle him/her to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563
Procedural and Factual Background
noted in the Court's prior Opinion (ECF 16),
this Court assumes all facts set forth in Plaintiff's
Complaint are true, solely for the purpose of adjudicating
brought this lawsuit against Defendant alleging that
Defendant violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
(“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., and
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),
15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. According to the Complaint,
Plaintiff had a savings account and Home Equity Lines of
Credit (“HELOCs”) with Defendant (collectively
“Plaintiff's Accounts”). ECF 1. The
HELOCs are secured by Plaintiff's primary residence.
alleges he was victim of fraud regarding these Accounts from
July 27, 2018 through August 9, 2018. Id. The fraud
involved unauthorized electronic transfers from
Plaintiff's Accounts, and was part of a larger fraud
scheme which was investigated by the FBI. Id. The
total value of ...