Opinion
Civil Action No. 16-10898-NMG
11-02-2016
Ilir Lecaj, Plaintiff, v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.
This case involves claims against defendant Cavalry SPV I, LLC ("Cavalry" or "defendant") brought by plaintiff Ilir Lecaj ("Lecaj" or "plaintiff") under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Massachusetts Credit Reporting Act and Massachusetts tort law. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss will be allowed.
I. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Lecaj held a Capital One credit card with an outstanding balance of approximately $3,000. Cavalry purchased the account from Capital One. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC ("CPS"), the servicing agent, informed plaintiff of the assignment and sought to collect the debt. In doing so, CPS made several credit inquiries and reported the disputed trade line to credit reporting agencies.
Lecaj disputed the debt, and in August, 2015, he sent Cavalry a letter requesting "verification and validation" of his account, to which Cavalry responded. Lecaj also alleges he sent a second request to Cavalry in January, 2016, but that Cavalry never responded.
Seven of the eight counts in the complaint arise out of three purported actions by Cavalry: 1) communicating with plaintiff by letter, 2) obtaining plaintiff's credit report and 3) reporting allegedly inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies.
Plaintiff fails to state a claim in counts I through VII because the documents attached to the complaint show that defendant did not perform any of the alleged actions. See Yacubian v. United States, 750 F.3d 100, 108 (1st Cir. 2014) (noting that exhibits attached to the complaint "trump" contrary allegations).
In count VIII, plaintiff contends that defendant operated as a debt collector without a license, in violation of M.G.L. c. 93, § 24A. Plaintiff fails to state a claim, however, because he does not allege that Cavalry is a debt collector as defined by the statute. See Pilalas v. Cadle Co., 695 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 2012).
ORDER
For the forgoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 6) is ALLOWED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he must, on or before Wednesday, November 30, 2016, file an amended complaint consistent with this Order. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge Dated November 2, 2016