Augustin v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190747
M.D. Fla.2012Background
- Plaintiff filed TCPA claim on August 10, 2011 alleging Defendant used an autodialer to call his cellular number over 100 times over three years seeking debt repayment.
- Plaintiff contends the debt may belong to his girlfriend or another creditor who sold its interest to Santander; the complaint lacks Plaintiff’s phone number, girlfriend’s details, or the calling number.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
- Court applied Twombly/Iqbal standard, requiring plausibly factual pleading rather than bare legal conclusions.
- Court concluded Plaintiff’s pleading failed to identify the calling number, dates, or other identifying details to establish a TCPA claim.
- Court granted dismissal without prejudice but allowed amendment and permitted sealed or redacted amendments to protect private information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly states a TCPA claim | Augustin asserts calls were made to his cellular phone using an autodialer without consent. | Complaint lacks essential identifying facts (numbers, dates, recipient) to show an actual call to Plaintiff’s phone. | Dismissed for failure to state a plausible TCPA claim; amendment allowed. |
| Whether the complaint can be salvaged with a more definite statement | Discovery would reveal the private information necessary to identify the calls. | Details are lacking and necessary for notice; 12(e) relief warranted. | 12(e) relief granted to permit an amended complaint consistent with this order. |
| Whether Plaintiff may amend under seal or redact personal information | Privacy concerns prevent disclosure in public filing. | Discovery would supply needed facts; public filing should include necessary details. | Plaintiff may amend under seal or file a redacted complaint; Court encouraged plausible amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must be plausible, not merely legal conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (distance between conclusory statements and plausible factual allegations)
- Griffith v. Consumer Portfolio Serv., Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 723 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (TCPA and debt collection context; broad application of autodialer use)
- Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (cases with specific phone-number details can plead a plausible TCPA claim)