United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division
DANIEL G. FIDDICK Plaintiff.
BAY AREA CREDIT SERVICE, LLC Defendant.
M. EDISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Daniel Fiddick ("Fiddick") brings this action
against Defendant Bay Area, Credit Service, LLC
("BACS") pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Texas Debt
Collection Act ("TDCA")• BACS has moved to
dismiss Fiddick's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). After carefully considering the
submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the Court
DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 17).
early 2018, Fiddick received medical services at Carver Park
Emergency Physicians ("Carver").. Due to financial
hardship, Fiddick fell behind on his scheduled payments to
Carver, causing him to incur debt (the "Subject
Debt")., BACS is in the business of collecting consumer
debts for others throughout the country. On May 25, 2018,
BACS sent Fiddick a letter, seeking to collect on the Subject
Debt. The May 25 letter identified the following amounts due
at 3. The May 25 letter also stated: "Unless you notify
this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that
you dispute the validity of the debt or any portion thereof,
this office will assume this debt is valid."
Id. Fiddick did not dispute the validity of the
Subject Debt., On October 26, 2018, BACS sent Fiddick two
additional letters. The two October 26 letters are identical
except that at the bottom of one letter is the reference
number "52040644" and the other contains reference
number "52069310." The October 26 letters indicate
that BACS is a debt collector seeking to collect a debt and
references the Subject Debt along with additional medical
debts owed by Fiddick. Specifically, the letters provided the
following summary of the amounts owed by Fiddick:
claims that as a result of the multiple letters "and the
conflicting information evident in all letters, [Fiddick] was
confused as to the true status of the [S]ubject [D]ebt * and
his ability to dispute the same." Dkt. 1 at 3.
Additionally, Fiddick maintains that the conflicting
reference numbers in the October 26 letters confused him
"as it led him to believe that he owed two different
debts." Id. at 4. Based on these allegations,
Fiddick asserts that BACS violated Sections l692e and l692f
of the FDCPA and Section 392.304 of the TDCA through the
alleged conflicting information contained in the multiple
letters BACS sent him. BACS has filed a Motion to Dismiss,
seeking to dismiss Fiddick's Complaint in its entirety.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows parties to seek
dismissal of a, lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. A motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the
legal standard set forth in Rule 8, requiring "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing. that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
BellAtl. Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). "Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679 (citation omitted).
conducting its inquiry, the Court "accept[s] all
well-pleaded facts as true and view[s] those facts in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff." Bustos v.
Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[A]
well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy
judge that actual proof of [the alleged] facts is improbable,
and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely."
Twombly, 55OU.Sat556 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). It is important to highlight that a motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is "viewed with disfavor
and is rarely granted." Harrington v. State Farm
& Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the
complaint and the documents either attached to or
incorporated in the complaint." Lovelace v. ...