Summary:
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.)
Commentary:
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:
Blog comments