Clark v. Corporation Service Company obo Wells Fargo & Company

Background

Lashonda Lynn Clark, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Corporation Service Company on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company and other defendants. She appeared to allege that the defendants wrongfully repossessed her vehicle. Clark also alleged that she sent Wells Fargo a “notice of claims and debt validation,” received unwanted calls and letters attempting to collect payment, that Wells Fargo and unidentified third parties used “skip tracing methods” to locate her vehicle, and that the vehicle was taken without notification or authorization.

Clark had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under that statute, the court may dismiss such a complaint at any time if it fails to state a claim for relief. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although the court had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally, Clark still had to comply with Rule 8 and allege facts supporting a plausible claim.

Claims and Analysis

The court said the complaint was difficult to understand but appeared to assert claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and for invasion of privacy.

The court explained that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits debt collectors from making false or misleading statements and from engaging in various abusive or unfair practices. It found that the complaint did not clearly allege that any defendant made false or misleading statements or engaged in abusive or unfair conduct toward Clark. The court also found that the complaint said nothing about predatory lending practices that could support a Truth in Lending Act claim and did not describe conduct that could constitute a serious invasion of privacy.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint and terminated all pending motions. It allowed Clark to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by February 1, 2023. The court prohibited her from adding new defendants or claims, or making additional filings in the case, without prior permission. The order stated that failing to meet the deadline or otherwise comply would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).