The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on two motions to dismiss Plaintiff Rhoda Jeffries' second amended complaint [27 and 30], filed by Defendants Wells Fargo Bank and TCN Recovery, Inc., and Plaintiff's motion to file surreply*fn1 . For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part Defendants' motions to dismiss [27 and 30] and dismisses Plaintiff's federal claims. The remainder of this case is remanded to state court. The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion to file a surreply .
Plaintiff Rhoda Jeffries and North Texas Auto Leasing entered into a Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Contract dated September 15, 2006, for the purchase of a 2004 Lexus GX470.*fn3 Shortly thereafter, in September 2006, the contract was assigned by North Texas Auto Leasing to Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc.. The contract creates a security interest in the vehicle. The certificate of title for the vehicle shows that Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. is the first-lien holder with a security interest in the Vehicle.*fn4
Jeffries began making monthly payments of $713.98 to Wells Fargo in October 2006. Jeffries alleges that Wells Fargo hired Defendant TCN Recovery, Inc. to repossess the car on May 12, 2010. On May 13, 2010, Wells Fargo sent Jeffries a notice of redemption. Jeffries mailed a completed Affidavit of Defense to Wells Fargo on May 26, 2010. Jeffries' Affidavit of Defense states that "No contract exist [sic]. The alleged agreement does not exist. The lien is flawed. No balance is due. There is a billing error. Violations may exist pursuant but not limited to the FDCPA and TILA * * *." Jeffries alleges that Wells Fargo sold the vehicle on June 10, 2010.
On August 17, 2010, Jeffries filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On September 16, 2010, Defendant Wells Fargo removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. After the case was removed, Jeffries filed a second amended complaint, asserting the following claims against Wells Fargo and TCN Recovery: (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Contractual Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Violation of TILA; (4) Violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (5) Conversion; (6) Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (7) Unconscionability. Jeffries' second amended complaint includes allegations that Wells Fargo uses "various layers of companies" for "plausible deniability" so that it may "move things around 'off balance sheet'" in order to create "the potential for abuse [that] is practically infinite." Jeffries also asserts that she had no payment obligations under the auto-loan because Wells Fargo "bifurcated" the loan agreement from the vehicle's certificate of title and securitized the loan by selling it to investors." Both Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims asserted in Jeffries' second amended complaint.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the case.See Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint first must comply with Rule 8(a) by providing "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)), such that the defendant is given "fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Second, the factual allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to raise the possibility of relief above the "speculative level," assuming that all of the allegations in the complaint are true. E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "[O]nce a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563.
The Court accepts as true all of the well-pleaded facts alleged by the plaintiff and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. See Barnes v. Briley, 420 F.3d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 2005). While a pro se litigant's pleadings are held to a lesser standard, the pro se litigant must comply with the court's rules and procedures. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1427 (7th Cir. 1996); Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158, 163 (7th Cir. 1994).
A. Motion for Leave to File Surreply and for Disqualification of Counsel
Plaintiff Jeffries filed a document entitled "Plaintiff Combined Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike All Testimony and Pleadings of Plaintiffs Attorneys and Motion for Disqualification of All Attorneys and Affirmative Defenses to Wells Fargo Claim." Both Defendants have responded to Jeffries' motion.
The decision whether to grant a motion for leave to file a surreply is within the district court's discretion. See Johnny Blastoff, Inc. v. Los Angeles Rams, 188 F.3d 427, 439 (7th Cir. 1999). In some instances, allowing the filing of a surreply "vouchsafes the aggrieved party's right to be heard and provides the court with the information necessary to make an informed decision." In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 320, 329 (N.D. Ill. 2005); see also Franek v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2009 WL 674269, *19 n.14 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2009) (recognizing that a surreply might be appropriate "when a moving party 'sandbags' an adversary by raising new arguments in a reply brief"). However, denial of a motion to file a surreply is appropriate when the movant has had the opportunity to thoroughly brief the issues. See Destiny Health, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 741 F. Supp. 2d 901, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2010). Moreover, there simply is no need for a surreply when "[e]ach brief in the sequence on the motion fairly responded to the arguments in the brief that preceded it." See Franek, 2009 WL 674269 at *19 n.14.
Here, Defendants' reply briefs were limited to the content of Jeffries' response brief, and Jeffries' proposed surreply fails to identify or respond to any supposedly new arguments raised in Defendants' replies. However, because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court liberally construes her filings ...