Nguyen v. Plusfour, Inc.
2:18-cv-01878
| D. Nev. | Jul 26, 2019Background
- Nguyen discovered a $132 debt reported by Plusfour that did not identify the original creditor and contacted Plusfour in 2018 requesting validation.
- Plusfour told Nguyen it would cost $10 to validate the debt or that validation would be provided only after payment; Nguyen did not pay and did not receive validation.
- Nguyen sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging violations of §§ 1692g, 1692e, 1692c, and 1692e(8).
- The court previously granted a motion to dismiss without prejudice and allowed Nguyen a chance to amend; Nguyen filed a second proposed amended complaint with largely the same facts but different statutory labels.
- The court found the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege any FDCPA violation and determined further amendment would be futile after prior notice of deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plusfour violated § 1692g by failing to send a written notice after the 2018 communication | Nguyen: § 1692g required a written notice within five days after the 2018 inquiry | Plusfour: It already sent the required § 1692g notice after the 2016 inquiry; statute does not require repeated notices | Court: No § 1692g violation; one timely notice in 2016 satisfied the statute |
| Whether Plusfour made false, deceptive, or misleading representations in violation of § 1692e | Nguyen: Demanding payment prior to verification and charging for validation was deceptive | Plusfour: No specific false or misleading representation pleaded | Court: No § 1692e claim; complaint fails to identify any false or misleading representation |
| Whether Plusfour violated § 1692c (improper communications) | Nguyen: Communications demanding payment before verification were improper | Plusfour: § 1692c provisions concern time, third parties, and attorneys—not false representations | Court: No § 1692c claim; alleged conduct does not fall within § 1692c subsections |
| Whether Plusfour violated § 1692e(8) by reporting the debt without noting it was disputed | Nguyen: Reporting without indicating dispute violated § 1692e(8) | Plusfour: No indication Plusfour knew or should have known the debt was disputed when reported | Court: No § 1692e(8) violation; complaint lacks allegations that Plusfour knew the debt was disputed |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent futility, undue delay, or prejudice)
- Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (FDCPA construed liberally for consumers; prohibits false or misleading representations)
- Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995) (FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly collect debts)
- Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing Rule 15 leave-to-amend standards)
- Soliz v. Murphy, Goering, Roberts & Berkman, P.C., 9 F.3d 1553 (9th Cir. 1993) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where amendments repeatedly fail to cure deficiencies)