Calderon v. Dynamic Collectors, Inc.
3:17-cv-05321
W.D. Wash.Jun 29, 2017Background
- Calderon was convicted in state court of traffic offenses and fined (initially $842, later $894). He appealed to state superior court but did not pursue further appeals.
- The unpaid fine accrued interest and the U.S. District Court assigned the debt to Dynamic Collectors, Inc. for collection.
- Dynamic sent collection correspondence warning Calderon he could lose his driver's license if he did not pay.
- Calderon, proceeding pro se, sued Dynamic in federal court asserting 20 claims under the FDCPA, the Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), challenging the license-threat, collection fees, interest, and calculations.
- Dynamic moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asking the court to judicially notice public court records showing the obligation was a traffic fine; Calderon opposed consideration of those documents and offered no alternative factual account.
- The court took judicial notice of the public records, concluded the challenged obligation was a court-imposed traffic fine (not a consensual consumer debt or a commercial claim), and dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FDCPA applies to collection of a court-imposed traffic fine | Calderon contends Dynamic’s collection practices (including threat of license loss) violated the FDCPA | Dynamic argues the FDCPA covers only consumer debts from consensual transactions, not court fines | Court: FDCPA does not apply to traffic fine collection; FDCPA claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA) applies to traffic fine collection | Calderon alleges WCAA violations (improper fees, interest, practices) | Dynamic argues WCAA governs commercial claims from agreements/contracts, not court-imposed fines | Court: WCAA inapplicable to traffic fine collection; WCAA claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether CPA claim survives based on alleged statutory violations | Calderon asserts WCAA violations make Dynamic’s conduct a per se CPA violation | Dynamic contends contested traffic fines do not occur in "trade or commerce," so CPA does not apply | Court: CPA claim fails (not in trade or commerce); CPA claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether the court may consider public court records on a Rule 12 motion | Calderon disputed the attached documents and objected to their consideration | Dynamic sought judicial notice of public records as matters of public record under Fed. R. Evid. 201 | Court: Took judicial notice of public records; consideration was proper because records were public and central to the complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir.) (FDCPA limited to obligations arising from consensual consumer transactions)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir.) (courts may judicially notice matters of public record on Rule 12 motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plaintiff must plead factual content permitting inference of liability)
- Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. Northern California Collection Service, 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir.) (leave to amend on 12(b)(6) should generally be granted unless amendment cannot cure defects)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash.) (elements required for a Washington CPA claim)