97 F. Supp. 3d 827
S.D.W. Va2015Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Snuffer alleges Great Lakes (federal loan servicer) repeatedly contacted him about federal student loans after he told them he was totally and permanently disabled and provided his attorney’s contact information.
- He sued in state court asserting: (Count I) violations of the WV Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA); (Count II) West Virginia Computer Crime and Abuse Act; (Count III) Telephone Harassment criminal statute; (Count IV) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); and (Count V) common-law invasion of privacy.
- Defendant removed to federal court, moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing federal preemption by the Higher Education Act (HEA)/ED regulations, lack of private causes of action for Counts II and III, and insufficient pleading.
- Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss. The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard and drew reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor.
- The court concluded that some WVCCPA claims could conflict with ED requirements but refused to find complete preemption; it assessed whether Counts II and III provide private causes of action and whether the complaint adequately pleads Counts I, IV, and V.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of state-law claims by HEA/ED regs | Snuffer alleges harassment and statutory violations; claims not fully displaced | Great Lakes says ED regs require servicers to contact borrowers (not counsel) and federal law therefore preempts state law about contacts | Partial rejection of preemption: WVCCPA preempted only to extent it actually conflicts with HEA/regs; complaint not fully preempted so motion denied on preemption |
| Private right under Telephone Harassment statute (Count III) | Seeks recovery for repeated/harassing calls | Great Lakes: §61‑8‑16 is criminal and provides no civil remedy; WVCCPA provides civil remedy for same conduct | Grant dismissal of Count III: no implied private right under §61‑8‑16 where WVCCPA supplies civil remedy |
| Private right under Computer Crime & Abuse Act (Count II) | Alleges injury from prohibited computer/communication conduct | Great Lakes: civil remedy requires prior criminal conviction or is otherwise unavailable | Denied: statute explicitly creates civil remedy for "injured by reason" of violations; language and Sedima precedent show "violation" does not require criminal conviction |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for WVCCPA, IIED, invasion of privacy (Counts I, IV, V) | Alleges repeated/coercive calls, harassment, emotional distress, invasion of seclusion | Great Lakes: allegations are formulaic/statutory recitations, lack factual detail to state plausible claims | Denied: complaint meets Rule 8 plausibility standard for Counts I, IV, and V; counts survive dismissal (Count I survives to the extent not preempted; IIED and invasion-of-privacy adequately pleaded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain more than legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- College Loan Corp. v. SLM Corp., 396 F.3d 588 (HEA conflict‑preemption framework)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (civil RICO analysis; "violation" need not mean criminal conviction)
- Travis v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 202 W.Va. 369, 504 S.E.2d 419 (elements of IIED under WV law)
- Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W.Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (categories of invasion of privacy under WV law)