Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ozier v. Rev-1 Solutions, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

August 9, 2017

DEBORAH OZIER, Plaintiff,
v.
REV-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          J.P. Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge

         1. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Deborah Ozier (“Ozier”) filed this case on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated alleging that defendant Rev-1 Solutions, LLC (“Rev-1”), a debt collection agency, sent her misleading collection letters in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). (Docket #1).

         On March 30, 2017, Rev-1 filed a motion to dismiss the complaint along with a brief in support of the motion. (Motion, Docket #14; Brief in Support, Docket #15). Ozier filed a brief in opposition on April 6, 2017. (Docket #16). Rev-1 submitted a reply in support of its motion on April 13, 2017. (Docket #18). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the defendant's motion and dismiss the complaint.[1]

         2. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The defendant has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This rule provides for dismissal of complaints which fail to state a viable claim for relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To state a viable claim, a complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In other words, the complaint must give “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). The allegations must “plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a speculative level[.]” Kubiak v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 476, 480 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

         In reviewing the plaintiff's complaint, the Court is required to “accept as true all of the well-pleaded facts in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in [her] favor[.]” Id. at 480-81. However, a complaint that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court must identify allegations “that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 679.

         3. RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS

         The facts of this case are few and straightforward. Rev-1 sent Ozier three letters seeking the collection of outstanding debts for personal medical services, in the amount of $26.23, $66.93, and $26.30, respectively. (Docket #1 at 2-3). Each letter identified Rev-1's client as Columbia St. Mary's. (Docket #1-1, 1-2, and 1-3). The letters included the account number associated with the debt and the date of the medical service for which the debt was incurred. Id. For example, the following information appeared on the front page of the first letter Rev-1 sent to Ozier:

         Image Omitted

         (Docket #1-1 at 2).

         The second page of each letter included a form the debtor could return with a payment and stated the name of the person owing the debt, the date of service, account number, and balance due. (Docket #1-1, 1-2, and 1-3). For example, the following information appeared on the back page of the first letter Rev-1 sent to Ozier:

         Image Omitted

         (Docket ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.