United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
L. ROSENBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss [DE 13]. The Motion has been fully briefed. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
Eduardo Ferro is the owner of real property. Plaintiff Mayra
Roberto received a letter from Defendant. Plaintiffs allege
that the letter was an improper attempt to collect upon a
debt (pertaining to homeowner's association dues owed by
Mr. Ferro) because, inter alia, Defendant misstated
the amount owed by approximately four hundred dollars. In
response, Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit, bringing four
claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court must accept all factual
allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff; however, a plaintiff is
still obligated to provide grounds of his or her entitlement
to relief which requires more than labels, conclusions and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
561-563 (2007). Unwarranted deductions of fact in a complaint
cannot be admitted as true for the purposes of testing the
sufficiency of the allegations. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh
Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir.
2005). The facts as pled must state a claim for relief that
is plausible on the face of the pleading. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678-69.
argues that this Court should take judicial notice of certain
documents and, after notice is taken, Plaintiffs' claims
must be dismissed with prejudice. The Court addresses each of
these points in turn.
requests that the Court take judicial notice of certain
public records: a warranty deed, declarations and bylaws of a
homeowner's association, and a complaint filed in state
court. On a motion to dismiss, a court may take judicial
notice of public records without converting the motion to
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Gastaldi v.
Sunbest Cmtys. USA, LLC, 637 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1054 (S.D.
Fla. 2009) (citing Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187
F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999)).
response, Plaintiffs cite to Doss v. Clearwater Title
Co., 551 F.3d 634, 640 (7th Cir. 2008) for the
proposition that this Court should not take judicial notice
of the public records cited by Defendant, but Doss
has no application to the facts before this Court. In
Doss, the district court erred by considering a deed
attached to a motion to dismiss. The appellate court found
that the district court had erred for three reasons. First,
the deed injected new facts into the case. Id. at
636 (“That motion introduced a new factual assertion
into the case.”). Second, the deed was a challenged
document-the plaintiff contended that the deed was a forgery.
Id. at 637. Third, as a result of the two foregoing
factors, the district court could not have determined that
the deed was “not subject to a reasonable
dispute.” Id. at 640. None of these facts
in this case Defendant has not proffered the public records
for the purpose of introducing new facts in this case, but
primarily to demonstrate that the allegations in
Plaintiffs' Complaint are objectively false. Second,
Defendant's proffered public records are central to
Plaintiffs' claims and Plaintiffs' Complaint. Third,
Plaintiffs do not challenge in any way the authenticity of
the public records, nor can the Court discern any reason to
conclude that the statements in the public records are
subject to a reasonable dispute. For the foregoing reasons,
the Court takes judicial notice of the public records
attached to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
upon the Court's judicial notice of the documents
referenced above, many of Plaintiffs' central allegations
are false. For example, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he
Claim of Lien stated that Mayra Roberto and Eduardo Ferro
failed to make [payments], ” however, it is clear that
the Lien was only addressed to Mr. Ferro, the owner of the
property. DE 1-3 at 2. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
filed a “Complaint to foreclose on a lien and take the
Plaintiffs [sic] property, ” but Ms. Roberto does not
own the real property in this case. DE 1 at 4. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant “sent Mayra Robert