COLON v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, LP
2:22-cv-02025-SDW-LDW
D.N.J.Jun 15, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Manuel Colón sued Southwest Credit Systems, LP asserting violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and unspecified New Jersey law based on attempts to collect and report a debt.
- Colón alleged Southwest reported his debt without his written instruction (FCRA) and failed to produce a signed contract authorizing the debt (FDCPA §1692f(1)).
- Southwest moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the FCRA claim misapplies §1681b(a)(2), the FDCPA claim misreads §1692f(1), and no New Jersey cause of action was pleaded.
- Colón’s initial opposition brief exceeded page limits, was stricken, and he failed to timely file a conforming opposition; the motion was therefore deemed unopposed.
- The Court applied Twombly/Iqbal and Third Circuit pleading standards, finding Colón’s complaint conclusory and lacking the factual allegations necessary to state any claim.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice and gave Colón 30 days to file an amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural: nonconforming opposition | Opposition exceeded page limits but contained substantive responses | Motion should be deemed unopposed for failure to comply with court order | Plaintiff’s brief was stricken; failure to refile timely rendered the motion unopposed |
| FCRA (§1681b(a)(2)) | Southwest needed written instruction from the consumer before reporting | §1681b(a)(2) governs CRAs; Southwest is not alleged to be a CRA and no written-instruction requirement applies to furnishers | Dismissed: complaint fails to allege Southwest is a CRA or facts supporting an FCRA claim |
| FDCPA (§1692f(1)) | Southwest must produce a signed contract authorizing the debt | §1692f(1) prohibits collecting unauthorized amounts; it does not require production of a signed contract | Dismissed: plaintiff misreads §1692f(1); complaint lacks adequate factual support |
| New Jersey law claim | Broad allegation that state law was violated | No specific state-law cause pleaded or supporting facts | Dismissed: conclusory assertions insufficient to state a New Jersey claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires factual allegations that raise a claim above speculation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions; apply Twombly plausibility standard)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 8 requires a showing; construe complaint in plaintiff’s favor)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (discussion and application of Iqbal pleading standard in Third Circuit)