Oden v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 4:12-cv-00861

Plaintiff Nancy N. Oden filed a state-court complaint alleging FDCPA and RESPA violations related to a mortgage held by Chase and sought injunctive relief.
Chase removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss; plaintiff did not respond by deadlines.
The court extended the response deadline to May 2, 2012, cautioning that nonresponse would result in dismissal.
Plaintiff again did not respond; the court granted the Motion to Dismiss based on lack of opposition and the record.
Plaintiff’s mortgage is reportedly subject to Chase’s mortgage; plaintiff sought to delay foreclosure pending modification.
The court applied Rule 12(b)(6) standards, requiring plausibility and the possibility of relief under a valid legal theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FDCPA claim viability	Oden alleges FDCPA violation	Chase is not a debt collector under FDCPA	Dismissed
RESPA claim viability	RESPA violation for failure to respond	No qualified written request and insufficient facts	Dismissed
Injunctive relief entitlement	Seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions	No likelihood of success; merits insufficient	Denied; injunctions dismissed
Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6)	Claims sufficiently stated to survive dismissal	Plaintiff failed to state a claim	Dismissed for failure to state a claim

Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141 (5th Cir. 2009) (motion to dismiss standards; disfavored standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plaintiff must plead plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (legal theories must have basis in law; status of claims)
McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059 (5th Cir. 1997) (requires plausible entitlement to relief)
ITT Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Arce, 533 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2008) (preliminary injunction standards; merits-based analysis)
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1981) (full merits trial required for permanent injunctions)