ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

[Re: ECF No. 7]

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

On December 16, 2013, Plaintiff Asharfun Hafiz filed a form complaint against Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("Nationstar") in small claims court in Alameda County. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 5-10. In that complaint, Ms. Hafiz alleges that Nationstar violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, one or more times from January 1, 2013 through December 10, 2013 and owes her $1,000 per violation. See id. at 6. This is the extent of Ms. Hafiz's factual allegations.

On January 27, 2014, Nationstar removed the action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction arising out of Ms. Hafiz's FDCPA claim. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2. Before the court is Nationstar's motion to dismiss Ms. Hafiz's Complaint. Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7. Ms. Hafiz did not file an opposition.

Nationstar makes three arguments in support of the motion: (1) Ms. Hafiz failed to meet her pleading burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8; (2) it is not a "debt collector" as defined under the FDCPA and therefore cannot be held directly liable for violation of the FDCPA; and (3) Ms. Hafiz never formally disputed receiving the subject loan or the subject loan proceeds underlying the loan before filing the Complaint.

A complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and must give a defendant fair notice of the claims and the grounds for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a `probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "While a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the `grounds' of his `entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations and parentheticals omitted).

The court agrees with Nationstar's first argument that Ms. Hafiz failed to meet her pleading burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8 by failing to plausibly state a claim for relief. While Ms. Hafiz alleges that "debt is disputed" and that Nationstar violated the FDCPA, she fails to allege factual matter sufficient to give Nationstar fair notice of the claims against it and the court adequate detail to consider Nationstar's second and third arguments for dismissal. For instance, given the complete lack of factual allegations, the court cannot assess whether Nationstar is a "debt collector" subject to the FDCPA or whether Ms. Hafiz sufficiently disputed the subject loan. Without more, the Complaint is entirely conclusory. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Nationstar's motion and dismisses without prejudice Ms. Hafiz's Complaint.1

Ms. Hafiz may file an amended complaint curing the deficiency described above by April 8, 2014.2 She should include in it all necessary and relevant facts in support of her FDCPA claim.

This disposes of ECF No. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.