United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Z. Lee, Judge
Teresa Bruner (“Bruner”) brought this action
against Defendant AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.
(“AllianceOne”). She challenges certain actions
AllianceOne took to collect a debt from her under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692
et seq., and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1
et seq. AllianceOne has moved to dismiss part of
Bruner's First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). For the
reasons that follow, AllianceOne's motion to dismiss 
is granted in part and denied in part.
2006, Bruner took out a residential mortgage from
CitiMortgage, Inc. that she was unable to pay back. Am.
Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 29. She filed for bankruptcy in
2008, which resulted in discharge of her debt on the mortgage
loan. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15. The order discharging
her debt on the loan “prohibits any attempt to collect
from the debtor a debt that has been discharged. For example,
a creditor is not permitted to contact a debtor by mail,
phone, or otherwise . . ., or take any other action to
collect a discharged debt from the debtor.”
Id., Ex. C. Thus, Bruner is no longer personally
liable for the debt on her mortgage loan. Am. Compl. ¶
2015, AllianceOne acquired servicing rights to the debt.
Id. ¶ 20. Then, purportedly acting with
knowledge of her bankruptcy, AllianceOne sent a dunning
letter to Bruner regarding the debt on September 18, 2015.
Id. ¶¶ 23-24. The letter explained that
AllianceOne was attempting to collect the debt and that
“any information obtained [would] be used for that
purpose.” Id., Ex. D. In addition to sending
the letter, AllianceOne allegedly made at least eleven phone
calls to Bruner's cell phone using various phone numbers
over a six-week period. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. Bruner
felt harassed by AllianceOne's actions and was concerned
and confused about her rights post-bankruptcy. Id.
¶¶ 29, 31-32. She therefore consulted with counsel
“to ensure that Defendant's collection efforts
ceased.” Id. ¶ 29. This lawsuit soon
survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a
complaint must “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Additionally, when considering motions to dismiss, the Court
accepts “all well-pleaded factual allegations as true
and view[s] them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park,
734 F.3d 629, 632 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Luevano v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir.
2013)). At the same time, “allegations in the form of
legal conclusions are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion.” McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 885 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). As such,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Count I: FDCPA
Count I, Bruner alleges that AllianceOne has violated three
different provisions of the FDCPA: 15 U.S.C. §§
1692d, 1692e, and 1692f. AllianceOne does not challenge
Bruner's claim under § 1692e.
first challenges Bruner's claim under § 1692d. Under
this provision, “[a] debt collector may not engage in
any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass,
oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the
collection of a debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. Bruner
alleges that AllianceOne's dunning letter and
“relentless” calls harassed, oppressed, and
abused her. Am. Compl. ¶ 41. To that end, Bruner focuses
on one particular type of conduct specified in the statute:
a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone
conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy,
abuse, or harass any person at the called number.” 15
U.S.C. § 1692d(5).
argues that Bruner's allegations of a single letter and
at least eleven calls to her cell phone over a span of six
weeks do not amount to a violation of § 1692d as a
matter of law. Mot. Dismiss 4, ECF No. 30. As an initial
matter, AllianceOne contends that sending a single collection
letter that is not threatening or profane cannot constitute a
violation of § 1692d. Id. at 4-5. Bruner does
not dispute this point in her response, and courts have
generally held that sending a single collection letter in
this fashion cannot ...