Flores v. Mediation Services

Background

The court had previously granted Jorge Flores permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. It then screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Flores alleged that Mediation Services regularly operated as a third-party debt collector. He said that on October 9, 2020, Mediation Services left him a prerecorded voicemail about a “personal business matter.” After Flores retained counsel, his counsel called Mediation Services on November 2, 2021, and the company allegedly confirmed that it was attempting to collect a consumer debt from Flores. The complaint also alleged that Mediation Services left similar prerecorded messages on December 16, 17, 18, and 21, 2020, without consent from Flores or his counsel to communicate directly with him.

Flores asserted four claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and a fifth claim under California’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, also known as the Rosenthal Act.

Court’s analysis

The FDCPA provisions in the first four counts applied only to “debt collectors.” The court explained that the complaint had to include facts supporting a reasonable inference that Mediation Services met the FDCPA’s definition. The complaint stated that Mediation Services regularly operated as a third-party debt collector and was a debt collector under the statute, but the court treated those statements as conclusions. The allegation that Mediation Services had confirmed it was trying to collect a consumer debt from Flores was also insufficient by itself. The complaint did not provide facts showing that debt collection was Mediation Services’ principal business purpose or that it regularly collected debts owed to someone else. The court therefore found no plausible factual basis to infer that Mediation Services was an FDCPA debt collector under either definition discussed in the opinion.

The court said the Rosenthal Act’s definition of “debt collector” was broader than the FDCPA’s definition, but it still found that the complaint lacked enough facts to plausibly show that Mediation Services met the state-law definition. The fifth count therefore also failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Disposition

The court did not dismiss the complaint at this stage. Instead, it ruled that the complaint as pleaded did not comply with Rule 8 and gave Flores until February 21, 2022, to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to be complete in itself and replace the previously filed complaint. The court stated that failing to correct the identified deficiencies could lead to a report and recommendation that the complaint be dismissed. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley.