ADDITIONAL CASES:Catherine C. Vaughan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,v.GC Services Limited Partnership, Defendant2:17-cv-3914
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERINTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Denise K. Homa (“Homa”) and Catherine C. Vaughan (“Vaughan,” collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought two separate, and now related, actions against Defendant GC Services Limited Partnership (“Defendant”) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in connection with two identical collection letters. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s joint motion to dismiss both actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss is granted.BACKGROUNDThe following relevant facts come from the Amended Complaints and are assumed true for purposes of this motion.On November 5, 2015, Defendant sent Plaintiff Homa a letter (the “Homa Letter”) seeking to collect a past-due debt she had incurred on a Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“Chase”) credit card. (Compl. [DE 11] No. 17-cv-1661 (hereinafter “Homa Compl.”)7.) On February 4, 2016, Defendant sent Plaintiff Vaughan an identical letter (the “Vaughan Letter”) seeking to collect a past-due debt she had likewise incurred on a Chase credit card. (Compl. [DE 9] No. 17-cv-3914 (hereinafter “Vauaghan Compl.”)7.) Neither the Homa nor the Vaughan Complaints allege that the Plaintiffs have made any payments toward their debts.Plaintiff Homa originally brought this action in New York State Court in November 2016. Plaintiff Vaughan originally brought this action in New York State Court in February 2017. Defendant removed the Homa action to this Court on March 24, 2017, and removed the Vaughan action to this Court on June 30, 2017. The Vaughan case was related to the Homa action and was therefore reassigned to the undersigned on August 1, 2017. Defendant brought a single motion to dismiss both the Homa and Vaughan actions on November 20, 2017.LEGAL STANDARDIn deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court should “draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff['s] favor, assume all well-pleaded factual allegations to be true, and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The plausibility standard is guided by two principles. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)); accord Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2009).First, the principle that a court must accept all allegations as true is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Thus, “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although “legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id. at 679. A plaintiff must provide facts sufficient to allow each named defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.Second, only complaints that state a “plausible claim for relief” can survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “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. The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but asks for more than a sheer possibility that defendant 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. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57) (internal citations omitted); see In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2007). Determining whether a complaint plausibly states a claim for relief is “a context specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; accord Harris, 572 F.3d at 72.DISCUSSIONI. The Parties’ ArgumentsIn the Vaughan Complaint, Plaintiff Vaughan sets out six causes of action: (1) failure to set forth the amount of the “debt” in the Vaughan Letter by omitting an explanation that the stated amount may increase in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a)(1); (2) failure to notify Plaintiff Vaughan that her “balance due” may be recalled by Chase in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e and §1692g(a)(1); (3) failure to explain that the “balance due” may increase due to pre-judgment interest pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. §5001(a) in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e and §1692g(a)(1); (4) failure to identify in any manner or properly identify the “creditor” in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e, §1692e(10), and §1692g(a)(2); (5) using false, deceptive, or misleading means to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e, §1692e(2)(A), and §1692e(10); and (6) using unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692f and/or §1692f(1). (Vaughan Compl.
