United States District Court, S.D. Florida
OMNIBUS ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court upon two Motions to
Dismiss filed by Defendants Village Square Condominium
Association, Inc. (“Village Square”), ECF No.
, and LH Alliance, Inc. (“LH”), ECF No. 
(together, the “Motions”). The Court has
considered the Motions, all opposing and supporting
submissions, the record in this case and the applicable law,
and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons explained
below, the Motions are granted in part.
case arises as a result of a disagreement regarding the
amount due following a special assessment. Plaintiff Safrah
Ali (“Plaintiff” or “Ali”) was the
owner of a one-bedroom condominium unit that formed part of
Village Square. ECF No.  ¶ 19. As a member of the
homeowner's association, Ali was required to pay monthly
maintenance charges to Village Square and along with other
members, was responsible for payment of any special
assessments validly enacted by the homeowners'
association board and/or members. Id. In 2017, the
owners were subject to a special assessment for various
projects to improve the property, according to which
one-bedroom unit owners would owe $12, 229.82. Id.
¶ 21; ECF No. [1-1]. Ali was given the option to pay the
special assessment in monthly installments, with payments to
begin on January 1, 2018. ECF No.  ¶ 21. Ali alleges
that she began to make monthly payments on the special
assessment around September, 2017, before the first payment
due date. Id.
about December 12, 2018, Ali sold her condominium unit to a
third party purchaser, and the amount of the special
assessment payoff total became a point of contention between
Ali and Village Square and LH (together,
“Defendants”). Id. ¶ 22. An
estoppel certificate letter delivered to the closing agent at
the time of sale of Ali's unit indicates that Ali owed
$16, 436.50 for the special assessment, which Ali contends
inflates and contradicts the previous amount of $12, 229.82.
Id. ¶¶ 23-24. As such, Ali maintains that
Defendants have wrongfully refused to refund the amounts they
collected at the closing. Id. ¶ 25.
result, Ali asserts claims for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1692, et seq., the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”), Fla. Stat.
§§ 559.55-559.785, against both Defendants (Counts
1 and 2), and for breach of contract against Village Square
(Count 3). Defendants now seek dismissal with prejudice of
Ali's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
of the Federal Rules requires that a pleading contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). Although a complaint “does not need detailed
factual allegations, ” it must provide “more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining
that Rule 8(a)(2)'s pleading standard “demands more
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation”). In the same vein, a complaint may not
rest on “‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)). “Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. These elements are required to survive a motion brought
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which requests dismissal for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
reviewing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a court, as a general
rule, must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and
evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in
favor of the plaintiff. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Fla. v. S. Everglades Restoration Alliance, 304 F.3d
1076, 1084 (11th Cir. 2002); AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.
v. Infinity Fin. Grp., LLC, 608 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1353
(S.D. Fla. 2009). However, this tenet does not apply to legal
conclusions, and courts “are not bound to accept as
true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Thaeter v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff's Office, 449 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir.
2006). Moreover, “courts may infer from the factual
allegations in the complaint ‘obvious alternative
explanations,' which suggest lawful conduct rather than
the unlawful conduct the plaintiff would ask the court to
infer.” Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp.,
605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 682). A court considering a Rule 12(b) motion is
generally limited to the facts contained in the complaint and
attached exhibits, including documents referred to in the
complaint that are central to the claim. Wilchombe v.
TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009);
see also Maxcess, Inc. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 433
F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[A] document outside
the four corners of the complaint may still be considered if
it is central to the plaintiff's claims and is undisputed
in terms of authenticity.”) (citing Horsley v.
Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1135 (11th Cir. 2002)).
Village Square's Motion to Dismiss
Square argues that Ali's claims should be dismissed
because Village Square does not meet the statutory definition
of a “debt collector” under the FDCPA or FCCPA,
Ali fails to specify which subsection(s) of the FDCPA or
FCCPA Village Square allegedly violated, Ali fails to allege
that Village Square knowingly collected an incorrect debt in
order to state a FCCPA claim, and the exhibits attached to
the Complaint, ECF No. , expressly contradict the breach
of contract claim.
outset, the Court notes that despite granting Ali's
request for an extension of time to respond to Village
Square's Motion, see ECF No. , the Response,
ECF No. , was filed eight days late without
explanation. In addition, Ali responds in substance to
part of Village Square's first argument only, and thus
effectively concedes that her other claims are subject to
dismissal. See Brady v. Medtronic, Inc. No.
13-CV-62199-RNS, 2014 WL 1377830, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8,
2014). “Generally, a litigant who fails to press a
point by supporting it with pertinent authority, or by
showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting
authority or in the face of contrary authority, forfeits the
point. The court will not do his research for him.”
Melford v. Kahane & Assocs., 371 F.Supp.3d 1116,
1126 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). Nevertheless, the Court considers Village
Square's arguments in turn.
Village Square is not a “debt collector” ...