Kwamir Bradley, appearing pro se, brought suit against Progress Residential after it sent a notice of default asserting her owed amount of $10,119.89, alleging that its failure to disclose federal law protections in the original lease agreement violated the FDCPA and other "consumer rights." Progress Residential filed a motion to dismiss because the Complaint was "completely devoid of specific factual allegations to support his claims of wrongdoing by Progress," failing under the Iqbal/Twombley standard.
In large part because Progress Residential did not, as required by local rule, file a brief in support of its 12(b)(6) motion, the district court held that this was a "close call" and allowed Mr. Bradley the opportunity to further amend his Complaint to address the alleged pleading deficiencies. (To which Progress Residential can file another 12(b)(6) motion.)
As it asserted that Mr. Bradley's complaint was conclusory and insufficient, it seems rather dismissive for Progress Residential to behave in the exact same manner by not briefing this issue.
For a copy of the opinion, please see: