Pacaya v. Freedom Mortgage Corp. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Elvis-Jack:Pacaya
v. 	Case No. 23-cv-279-LM
Freedom Mortgage Corp.
Orlans, PC
Federal Mortgage Home Loan Corp.
Grafton County Sheriff’s Dept.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Elvis-Jack:Pacaya has sued several defendants,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”) and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(3) (“RESPA”). 	Before the
court is defendant Orlans, PC’s (“Orlans”) motion to dismiss the
two claims asserted against it for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted (Doc. No. 6). 	Plaintiff has filed
no objection. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 	Pursuant to LR
72.1, the motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for a report and recommendation. 	For the reasons that
follow, the district judge should grant Orlans’s motion.
Standard of Review
When evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the court asks whether the plaintiff
has made allegations in his pleadings that are sufficient to
render his entitlement to relief plausible. 	See Manning v.
Case 1:23-cv-00279-LM-AJ Document 19 Filed 07/19/23 Page 1 of 5

2
Boston Med. Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34, 43 (1st Cir. 2013). 	The
court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and draws all
reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. Hamann v.
Carpenter, 937 F.3d 86, 88 (1st Cir. 2019). 	The court, however,
disregards conclusory allegations that simply parrot the
applicable legal standard. Manning, 725 F.3d at 43. 	In addition
to the allegations in the complaint, the court may also consider
judicially noticed documents, matters of public record, and
documents attached to the complaint, without converting this
12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment. 	See
Breiding v. Eversource Energy, 939 F.3d 47, 49 (1st Cir. 2019);
Greene v. Rhode Island, 398 F.3d 45, 49 (1st Cir. 2005).
Background
Plaintiff asserts two FDCPA violations against Orlans. 	In
Count IV, plaintiff alleges that Orlans violated 15 U.S.C. §
1692g when it did not respond to a request to validate a debt
within five business days. Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 34-36. 	In
Count VI, plaintiff alleges multiple violations of 15 U.S.C. §§
1692g (c)-(g). 	Id. ¶¶ 45-55.
A. 	Validation of Debt (Count IV)
In Count IV, plaintiff alleges that Orlans violated § 1692g
by failing to “acknowledge,” within five days of receipt,
plaintiff’s May 10, 2023, “demand for validation of claim with
regards to their claim of a debt.” 	Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 34-
Case 1:23-cv-00279-LM-AJ Document 19 Filed 07/19/23 Page 2 of 5

3
36. 	Although § 1692g(a) includes a five-day time limit, and §§
1692g(a)(3)-(5) include thirty-day limits, those time limits
make no reference to “validating a claim.” 	The five-day period
in §1692g refers to the time period after the “initial
communication” a debt collector initiates with a consumer “in
connection with the collection of any debt,” in which a debt
collector must provide certain information. 15 U.S.C. §
1692g(a). 	The thirty-day period in § 1692(g) refers to the time
period a consumer has to dispute the validity of a debt after
receiving the communication from the debt collector containing
the information required by § 1692g. Id. 	As neither cited
subsection requires a response to a “demand for verification,”
Count IV fails to state a FDCPA claim against Orlans and should
be dismissed.
B. Violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c-1692g (Count VI)
In Count VI, plaintiffs allege that Orlans (and others)
have violated numerous provisions of the FDCPA by:
• 	communicating with the plaintiff without his consent;
• 	threatening the plaintiff with violence or other criminal
means;
• 	using obscene and profane language;
• 	instilling a false representation of the legal status of an
alleged debt;
• 	instilling a false representation regarding plaintiff’s
ability to defend against payment;
• 	instilling a false representation that plaintiff committed
a crime; and
• 	attempting to collect a debt without authority.
Case 1:23-cv-00279-LM-AJ Document 19 Filed 07/19/23 Page 3 of 5

4
Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 47-53.
Although the plaintiff has accurately identified FDCPA
provisions which prevent debt collectors from engaging in
certain actions, he has failed to allege any “supporting facts,”
see Wood v. U.S. Bank, Civ. No. 22-cv-235-JL, 2023 WL 3867254,
at *2 (D.N.H. June 7, 2023) (cleaned up), “such as the dates,
times, or content of the allegedly unlawful” communications or
representations committed by Orlans. 	Chiras v. Associated
Credit Servs, Inc., No 12-10871-TSH, 2012 WL 3025093, at *1 (D.
Mass. July 23, 2012) (dismissing FDCPA claim). 	Plaintiff’s
conclusory allegations of Orlans’s illegal conduct are
insufficient to state a claim for relief. 	See Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (holding that “a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do . . . .”) (cleaned up).
Accordingly, Orlans’s motion to dismiss Count VI should be
granted.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the district court should grant
defendant Orlans PC’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6).1
1Citing Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029
(2019), Orlans argues that, as a law firm representing a
Case 1:23-cv-00279-LM-AJ Document 19 Filed 07/19/23 Page 4 of 5

5
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to
this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the
district court. See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by
such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. See id. Failure to
file any objections within the specified time waives the right
to appeal the district court's Order. 	See Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
July 19, 2023
cc: 	Elvis-Jack:Pacaya, pro se
Counsel of Record
mortgagee, it cannot be held liable as a “debt collector” under
the FDCPA. 	Without commenting on the strength of this argument,
the court notes that Orlans’s status and role in the underlying
dispute is not apparent from the complaint. 	The court,
therefore, does not address it in the context of a motion under
Rule 12(b)(6).
Case 1:23-cv-00279-LM-AJ Document 19 Filed 07/19/23 Page 5 of 5