United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Z. Lee United States District Judge
Wei Liang filed suit against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC,
LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., and
Alegis Group, LLC alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§
1692, 1692a-1692p. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss
. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
2005, North Star Capital Acquisition, LLC brought an action
against plaintiff Wei Liang for a debt originating from a
credit card. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26-27,
ECF No. 32. On December 29, 2005, a default judgment was
entered against Liang. See Id. ¶ 26;
id., App. A.
after a series of transactions, defendant LVNV Funding, LLC
is the purported owner of the debt. See Id.
¶¶ 35-36. Defendant Alegis Group, LLC is the sole
partner of defendant Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., which
is responsible for managing LVNV's debt portfolio.
See Id. ¶¶ 16-19, 23. Defendant Frontline
Asset Strategies, LLC (“FAS”) is a debt
collection agency retained by LVNV. See Id.
¶¶ 6- 8, 37-40. It should be noted that the file
for the case resulting in the default judgment does not show
LVNV as the assignee of record. See Id. ¶ 34.
8, 2015, FAS sent a collection letter to Liang identifying
LVNV as the creditor to whom the debt is owed and stating:
A judgment was entered against you on 12/29/2005. Your unpaid
judgment has been turned over to us for collection with a
total amount due of $10, 539.18 as of the date of this
. . . .
. . . . Nothing contained in this letter changes or alters
your consumer rights.
See Id. ¶¶ 37-39.
primary objections to the letter are that (1) it did not
disclose that the judgment in question was a dormant judgment
under Illinois law and (2) the defendants were not the
judgment creditors. Defendants now seek to dismiss the
lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the
complaint. Christensen v. Cty. of Boone, Ill., 483
F.3d 454, 457 (7th Cir. 2007). Under the federal notice
pleading standards, “a plaintiff's complaint need
only provide a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, sufficient to provide
the defendant with fair notice of the claim and its
basis.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074,
1081 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), the Court must “accept . . . as true all
well-pleaded facts alleged, and draw[ ] all possible
inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor.”
Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1081.
complaint, however, must also allege “sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). For a claim
to have facial plausibility, a plaintiff must plead
“factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id. Plausibility, however, “does not ...