PITTS v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 1:16-cv-04501

Pro se plaintiff Genoveva Pitts sued Bayview Loan Servicing under the FDCPA alleging multiple communications (Jan–May 2016) seeking to collect a mortgage-related debt connected to foreclosure.
Pitts claimed Bayview contacted her without her prior written consent or court permission, and that two communications (Mar 18 and May 20) failed to identify Bayview as a debt collector.
She sought statutory and substantial actual damages and alleged mental anguish and anxiety.
Bayview moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Pitts did not oppose and filed no responsive papers.
The court treated well-pleaded facts as true and applied the plausibility standard (Iqbal/Twombly line) in evaluating whether Pitts adequately alleged specific FDCPA violations.
The court concluded Pitts failed to allege facts showing a violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c or 1692e(11) and granted dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether communications violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692c (improper communications)	Bayview contacted Pitts without her prior written consent or court permission, thus violating § 1692c	Bayview is a mortgage servicer communicating about a mortgage; Pitts did not plead the particulars required by § 1692c (unusual time/place, third parties, represented by counsel, employment contact, or a cease request)	Court: Dismiss — complaints do not allege the specific conduct § 1692c prohibits, so no plausible § 1692c claim
Whether communications violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) (required disclosures)	Two communications failed to disclose that Bayview was a debt collector in subsequent communications	The March and May notices explicitly stated they were "informational only" and not attempts to collect; thus they were not false or misleading under § 1692e(11)	Court: Dismiss — the notices’ unambiguous language defeats a plausible § 1692e(11) claim

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (per curiam) (pro se complaints are to be liberally construed)
Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004) (pro se pleadings given liberal construction)
Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Cir. 2003) (liberal construction for pro se complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012) (strip conclusory statements, evaluate well-pled allegations)
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (distinguishing factual allegations from legal conclusions)
Bailey v. Security Nat’l Serv. Corp., 154 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 1998) (FDCPA interpretation regarding communications and collection attempts)