Hodge v. Travel + Leisure Co.

Background

Hodge alleged that she purchased two timeshare properties through Travel + Leisure around 2020 and agreed to make monthly payments connected to timeshare-related services. She claimed that when she was late, Travel + Leisure repeatedly called her cell phone, sometimes more than three times a day, to collect the missed payment. She alleged that some calls used artificial or prerecorded voice messages.

Travel + Leisure moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim

The court explained that, as relevant here, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act can regulate calls that use either an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Hodge did not allege that Travel + Leisure used an automatic telephone dialing system, so the court considered only the artificial-or-prerecorded-voice theory.

Hodge alleged that unanswered calls left prerecorded messages purportedly from “Sarah from Wyndham Vacation Resorts” and that answered calls similarly began with an artificial or prerecorded voice message. The court held that these allegations, together with Hodge’s conclusory statements that Travel + Leisure used prerecorded or artificial voice messages, did not provide enough factual detail to support the claim. The court therefore dismissed Hodge’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim.

The court also rejected Hodge’s argument that she could rely on a less demanding pleading standard. It stated that allowing a bare assertion that a defendant used an artificial or prerecorded voice would conflict with the requirement that a complaint contain factual allegations supporting a plausible claim. The court further noted that facts raised for the first time in Hodge’s opposition brief could not amend her complaint.

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims

Hodge based her California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims on California Civil Code sections 1788.11 and 1788.17. The court stated that both provisions require debt arising from a “consumer credit transaction.” It explained that such a transaction includes acquiring something of value without immediate payment and an agreement that the consumer will pay in the future.

The court found that Hodge did not adequately allege that her late timeshare payments qualified as consumer credit transactions. Her complaint described the payments as covering services associated with the timeshares, but the court said that description did not show that she received something of value before paying. The payments could instead have been fees for continuing services or advance payments for future services, neither of which would establish the required credit transaction on the allegations presented.

The court also rejected Hodge’s argument that making payments after their due dates transformed them into credit transactions. It held that a credit transaction is not created retroactively by a consumer’s later failure to pay on time. The court therefore dismissed Hodge’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila granted Travel + Leisure’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court ordered Hodge to file any amended complaint within 14 days of the order.