Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants Roy Tuck's motion to proceed in forma pauperis after finding that his financial circumstances prevent him from paying the filing fee. The court allows Tuck's TCPA, FDCPA, and California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims to proceed, but dismisses the FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, with leave to amend within 30 days.
Holdings
- A plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis when the application sufficiently demonstrates that the plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee while affording the necessities of life. Plaintiff's financial submissions established that he could not pay the filing fee, so the court granted IFP status.
- Plaintiff's allegations that Yelp made numerous automated calls and texts to his cellular telephone, including calls to an emergency cell phone, were sufficient to state a non-frivolous TCPA claim at the § 1915(e)(2) screening stage.
- Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state plausible, non-frivolous claims under the identified FDCPA provisions and, by extension, under California Civil Code § 1788, except for the claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.
- Plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 1692g because, although he alleged that he disputed the debt in writing, he did not allege that he requested the name and address of the original creditor; the § 1692g claim was dismissed, with leave to amend.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient financial inability to pay the filing fee to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether Plaintiff's TCPA allegations were sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Whether Plaintiff's FDCPA and California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allegations stated plausible claims sufficient to proceed under § 1915(e)(2).
- Whether Plaintiff stated a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g by alleging that he disputed the debt in writing without alleging that he requested the name and address of the original creditor.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (12)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)(followed)
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.3d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)(followed)
- Temple v. Ellerthorp, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
- Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 342 (2016)(followed)
- Tuck v. Am. Accounts & Advisors, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-0671-GPC-NLS, 2019 WL 2514733, at *3, *4 n.3 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2019)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…