Middleton v. Parrish Snead Franklin Simpson, PLC, 2:16-cv-01217

Background

Plaintiff Ervin Middleton, a Nevada resident, sued a Virginia homeowners association (England Run), a Virginia law firm (Parrish Snead Franklin Simpson, PLC), and individual attorneys alleging debt-collection communications about fees for his Virginia home.
Middleton alleges he received an initial letter, sent a fax disputing the debt, then received two more letters, two emails, and four phone calls.
He asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Nevada law requiring debt collectors to register.
Complaint lumped all defendants together, failing to identify which defendant took which action or to plead facts showing defendants were "debt collectors" or used an automated dialing system.
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead plausible facts and homeowner association additionally moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Court granted dismissal: claims against the association dismissed with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; claims against the firm and individuals dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend limited to 21 days; declaratory judgment denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint adequately pleads FDCPA claims	Middleton: defendants engaged in deceptive/false collection practices and continued contact after dispute	Defendants: complaint lacks facts showing any defendant is a "debt collector" or that the communications involved consumer debt covered by FDCPA	Dismissed for failure to plead specific facts; claims against firm/individuals without prejudice, FDCPA claims may be amended
Whether complaint adequately pleads TCPA claims	Middleton: calls used an automatic telephone dialing system and violated Do Not Call protections	Defendants: conclusory allegation of ATDS use; no factual basis to infer ATDS or contents that violate TCPA; calls may fall under exceptions	Dismissed for failure to plead ATDS or other required facts; may be amended
Whether Nevada consumer-fraud/registration claim is adequately pleaded	Middleton: defendants collected debt in Nevada without registering as debt collectors	Defendants: no allegation they operated a debt-collection business in Nevada or caused damages from failure to register	Dismissed without prejudice for lack of factual support as to operation in Nevada and damages; may be amended
Whether court has personal jurisdiction over England Run Community Association	Middleton: association liable for acts of its agents, implying jurisdiction	England Run: no contacts with Nevada; never contacted Middleton in Nevada	Dismissed with prejudice for lack of any alleged contacts with Nevada sufficient for personal jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must include factual allegations that plausibly suggest entitlement to relief)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim beyond labels and conclusions)
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint must give fair notice with sufficient underlying facts to enable defense)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standard but still must meet pleading rules)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for specific facts required to establish personal jurisdiction)
DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) (leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would be futile)