Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA claim where the pro se plaintiffs failed to allege that the defendant loan servicer or MERS qualified as "debt collectors" under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). The court held that a loan servicer is not a debt collector unless it began servicing the loan after default, and MERS as nominee at origination is not a debt collector. The plaintiffs also waived challenges to the district court's refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and denial of leave to amend.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to plausibly allege that Ocwen or MERS were debt collectors under the FDCPA because it did not allege that the debt was in default at the time the defendants obtained an interest in it.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants were debt collectors under the FDCPA.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013)(cited)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(cited)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(cited)
- Ortiz v. McBride, 323 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2003)(cited)
- Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 1998)(cited)
- Vincent v. The Money Store, 736 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2013)(cited)
- Roth v. CitiMortgage Inc., 756 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2014)(cited)
- Obduskey v. Wells Fargo, 879 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir.)(cited)
- Glazer v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 704 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2013)(cited)
- Perry v. Stewart Title Co., 756 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1985)(cited)
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…