AMY BERMAN JACKSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Anthony Rivera brings this action against defendant Rosenberg & Associates, LLC, claiming that defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., when it attempted to collect on plaintiff's mortgage debt and threatened foreclosure against plaintiff's property without having the legal authority to do so. Am. Compl. [Dkt. #9]. Plaintiff also brings an FDCPA claim on behalf of a class of property-owning residents of the District of Columbia, challenging similar alleged misconduct by defendant. Id. ¶¶ 39, 5051. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claims and further, that he has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s 1st Am. Compl. [Dkt. #10] ("Def.'s Mot."); Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. #10-1] ("Def.'s Mem."). Because the Court finds that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge an assignment of interest to which he was not a party or a foreclosure that has not taken place, and because the amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim under the FDCPA in any event, the Court will grant defendant's motion and dismiss the case.
In August 2001, plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan from North American Mortgage Company ("NAMCO") to purchase a property located at 817 4th Street, NE, Washington, D.C. Am. Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff executed a promissory note and deed of trust in exchange for the loan from NAMCO.
Plaintiff alleges that at some unspecified time, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMC") claimed to have acquired WaMu's interest in plaintiff's mortgage loan. Id. ¶ 10. He states that at some point in 2009, he "was advised by JPMC, or its agent Shapiro & Burson, to make the [mortgage] payment to JPMC" instead of WaMu. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff notified JPMC that he would not make mortgage payments to JPMC unless it established that it was the proper "holder" of the promissory note, which he contends JPMC failed to do. Id. ¶¶ 12-18. He thus alleges that JPMC "was not legally entitled to enforce the promissory note because it was not the `holder,'" and that he "had no legal obligation" to pay JPMC. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
Plaintiff claims that, instead of responding to his request that it produce the
Plaintiff states that from May 2012 to April 2014, he sent numerous letters to JPMC requesting a certified copy of the promissory note. Am. Compl. ¶ 25. He alleges that on April 17, 2014, JPMC responded "with a copy of the promissory note payable to NAMCO with no endorsements." Id. ¶ 27.
On October 9, 2014, defendant sent plaintiff a letter that identified JPMC as the servicer of plaintiff's mortgage and stated that his loan had been referred to defendant for foreclosure based upon a default in plaintiff's mortgage payments totaling $368,467.16. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Plaintiff alleges that as of that date, JPMC had not yet appointed defendant as the substitute trustee, and that JPMC only appointed defendant as the substitute trustee on October 17, 2014. Id. ¶¶ 30-31. Thus, plaintiff contends that defendant had no rights to exercise against the property on October 9, 2014, when defendant sent plaintiff the letter. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. He further contends that JPMC's appointment of defendant as the substitute trustee on October 17, 2014 was invalid because "JPMC was not the assignee of the Deed of Trust nor the payee of the promissory note" and therefore "JPMC had no legal authority to appoint [defendant] the trustee" to the deed of trust. Id. ¶¶ 34-37. Thus, plaintiff contends that defendant "is not the trustee to the subject deed of trust and is without any legal right to conduct a foreclosure" against the property. Id. ¶ 38.
Plaintiff initiated this action on April 7, 2015, before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and defendant removed the action to this Court on April 27, 2015. Notice of Removal [Dkt. #1]. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 17, 2015, alleging in Count I that "Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692" by:
Am. Compl. ¶ 46. In Count II, plaintiff also brings a claim on behalf of a class of property-owning residents of the District of Columbia, contending that "Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692 by misrepresenting it had rights against [his] and Class
On July 1, 2015, defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Def.'s Mem. at 1. Plaintiff opposed the motion on July 20, 2015, Pl.'s Opp. to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. #12] ("Pl.'s Opp."), and defendant filed a reply on July 27, 2015. Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. #13] ("Def.'s Reply"). With leave of Court, see Min. Order (Aug. 12, 2015), plaintiff filed a surreply on August 19, 2015. Pl.'s Surreply to Def.'s Reply [Dkt. #15] ("Pl.'s Surreply").
In evaluating a motion to dismiss under either Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), the Court must "treat the complaint's factual allegations as true ... and must grant plaintiff `the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.'" Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C.Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted), quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C.Cir.1979); see also Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C.Cir.2011). Nevertheless, the Court need not accept inferences drawn by the plaintiff if those inferences are unsupported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiff's legal conclusions. Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002).
Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Shekoyan v. Sibley Int'l Corp., 217 F.Supp.2d 59, 63 (D.D.C.2002). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C.Cir.2004) ("As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction."). "[B]ecause subject-matter jurisdiction is `an Art[icle] III as well as a statutory requirement ... no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court.'" Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C.Cir.2003), quoting Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982).
When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, unlike when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court "is not limited to the allegations of the complaint." Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C.Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). Rather, "a court may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question [of] whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case." Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F.Supp.2d 18, 22 (D.D.C.2000), citing Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992); see also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C.Cir.2005).
"To survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
"To state a case or controversy under Article III, a plaintiff must establish standing." Arizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 1442, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011), citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); see also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Standing is a necessary predicate to any exercise of federal jurisdiction, and if it is lacking, then the dispute is not a proper case or controversy under Article III, and federal courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the case. Dominguez v. UAL Corp., 666 F.3d 1359, 1361 (D.C.Cir.2012).
Defendant contends that "Plaintiff is not a party to the mortgage assignment between his originating lender and his current lender with standing to challenge the validity of such assignment," and further, it asserts that plaintiff "lacks standing to challenge his lender's right to foreclose on his real property because foreclosure has neither taken place nor is currently pending against the property." Def.'s Mem. at 2. Plaintiff responds that there is no allegation in the amended complaint challenging an assignment, and that he is alleging instead that "the Note has not been endorsed to the Defendant's principal," and therefore, "Defendant has no rights in the Deed of Trust." Pl.'s Opp. at 4, citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-16, 27, 32-33, 38. In other words, plaintiff contends that JPMC was not the proper assignee of the deed of trust or the payee of the promissory note and it therefore lacked the authority to appoint defendant as substitute trustee.
But an individual who is not a party to, or an intended beneficiary of, an assignment agreement lacks standing to challenge the validity of the assignment. See, e.g., Taylor v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 85 F.Supp.3d 63, 71 (D.D.C.2015) ("Plaintiff does not have standing to challenge the validity of any assignment of the Note and Deed of Trust because Plaintiff has not pled any facts showing that he is `a party to, or an intended beneficiary of, the assignment agreement.'"), quoting Jessup v. Progressive Funding, 35 F.Supp.3d 25, 35 (D.D.C.2014) (holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge assignment of loan since she was not a party to the assignment); Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. N.A. v. Henderson, No. CV 14-747, 107 F.Supp.3d 41, 45, 2015 WL 3484990, at *2 (D.D.C. May 28, 2015) ("Because defendant has not alleged that he is either a party to, or an intended beneficiary of, the assignment of the Note and
Henderson, 107 F.Supp.3d at 45, 2015 WL 3484990, at *2.
This general principal of law has been applied specifically in the FDCPA context, and it demonstrates why plaintiff lacks standing here. In Clark v. Lender Processing Services, Inc., 949 F.Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Ohio 2013), aff'd sub nom. Clark v. Lender Processing Services, 562 Fed. Appx. 460 (6th Cir.2014), the plaintiffs' mortgages were assigned from the originating banks to other banks, and were eventually foreclosed upon by the defendants, a group of loan processing companies and law firms. Id. at 767-68. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had violated the FDCPA by fabricating mortgage assignments, fraudulently endorsing affidavits, and backdating mortgage transfers, in order to initiate foreclosure actions on behalf of trusts that otherwise lacked standing to foreclose. Id. The defendants countered that the plaintiffs "lack[ed] standing to assert any claim under the FDCPA ... based on allegedly faulty assignments of the notes and mortgages ... because [the plaintiffs] are not parties to the agreements." Id. at 770.
The court agreed with the defendants that "even if there were a flaw in the assignment, [a plaintiff] does not have standing to raise that flaw to challenge [the] chain of title," because "[a] litigant who is not a party to an assignment lacks standing to challenge that assignment." Id. at 771, quoting Livonia Props. Holdings, LLC v. 12840-12976 Farmington Rd. Holdings, LLC, 399 Fed.Appx. 97, 102 (6th Cir.2010). It thus found that because the plaintiffs "lack[ed] standing to challenge the allegedly faulty assignments relating to the mortgages," they therefore also "lack[ed] standing to assert any claim under the FDCPA." Id.
Like the plaintiffs in Clark, plaintiff bases his FDCPA claims here, at least in part, on his contention that the transfer of his mortgage debt from his original lender to JPMC was flawed. Specifically, he contends that JPMC failed to produce evidence showing that it was the "holder" of the promissory note executed in exchange for the loan. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 12-19, 25-27. Without being the holder, plaintiff argues, JPMC "had no legal authority to appoint [defendant] the trustee," id. ¶ 37, and defendant therefore "has no rights in the Deed of Trust." Pl.'s Opp. at 4. This contention — that the transfer of interest to JPMC was flawed and that JPMC therefore could not appoint defendant as substitute trustee — is at the heart of plaintiff's first FDCPA claim: that defendant "[m]isrepresent[ed] that it was duly appointed trustee by an authorized party to the deed of trust or promissory note." Am. Compl. ¶ 46(a). But plaintiff does not allege that he was party to, or the beneficiary of, any assignment to JPMC of the interest in his property. Therefore, to the extent that his first FDCPA claim is premised on the notion that the transfer of interest to JPMC was flawed, plaintiff lacks standing to assert it, as he has not alleged that he was a party to, or beneficiary of, any assignment
Similarly, plaintiff is without standing to assert his claim that defendant violated the FDCPA by "[f]alsely representing the amount of the debt owed to JPMC." Id. ¶ 46(c). This allegation, as plaintiff himself acknowledges, is based on plaintiff's claim "that he does not owe [JPMC] any amount because [JPMC] is not the holder of the Note." Pl.'s Opp. at 13. At bottom, this is simply another attempt by plaintiff to challenge the validity of the transfer of interest to JPMC, which plaintiff cannot do because he was not a party to the assignment.
The same is true of plaintiff's claim that defendant violated the FDCPA by "[f]alsely representing the legal status of the debt as being in foreclosure," and "[t]hreatening to dispose of the Property at a foreclosure sale." Am. Compl. ¶ 46(b), (e). Plaintiff does not deny that his mortgage was in default, and in fact, he affirmatively acknowledges that he refused to make payments to JPMC beginning in 2009. See id. ¶¶ 9-19, 25-27 (stating that plaintiff would only agree to make mortgage payments to JPMC "on the condition that JPMC established that it was the `holder' of the note," and alleging that JPMC failed to do so). Instead, his claims relating to the impropriety of defendant's communications regarding a potential foreclosure are based on the same allegations that JPMC lacks the authority to enforce the promissory note "because it was not the `holder' of the promissory note," and that defendant lacks the authority to foreclose because it "is not the trustee to the subject deed of trust and is without any legal right to conduct a foreclosure." Id. ¶¶ 16, 38. Therefore, insofar as these aspects of plaintiff's FDCPA claim are contingent upon plaintiff's allegation that the transfer of interest in his mortgage loan was faulty, he is without standing to assert them.
Finally, to the extent that plaintiff is attempting through this lawsuit to block any future foreclosure efforts by defendant or JPMC, he lacks standing to do so. That is because a borrower's allegation that a lender "commenced or authorized the commencement of foreclosure proceedings where payments have not been made or received ... does not indicate an actual or imminent, rather than a conjectural or hypothetical, injury." Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir.2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In other words, an attempted or threatened foreclosure, as opposed to an actual, realized foreclosure, cannot create the injury-in-fact required to generate constitutional standing. See, e.g., Taylor, 85 F.Supp.3d at 70 n.2 ("It is unclear whether Plaintiff even has standing himself ... because Plaintiff appears primarily to be alleging that Defendants `attempted' to foreclose on his property, not that Plaintiff's Property has been foreclosed or is even in the process of being foreclosed."), citing Rajamin, 757 F.3d at 85. Plaintiff has not alleged anywhere in
Even assuming plaintiff has standing to bring his claims, he still fails to state a plausible claim under the FDCPA, and dismissal is warranted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
In the amended complaint, plaintiff did not identify the specific provision of the FDCPA that underlies his individual and class claims against defendant. And even after defendant moved to dismiss on this basis, see Def.'s Mot. at 15-16, plaintiff failed to address that omission in his opposition. Instead, in both pleadings, he cites generally to the statute at large. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶ 1 ("This is an action for actual and statutory damages, costs and attorney's fees brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq."); Pl.'s Opp. at 5 ("Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the Defendant violated the FDCPA when it misrepresented that it was a lawful substitute trustee during its attempts to collect on the debt."). He alleges that "Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692" in several ways, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46, 50-51, but that particular provision is the FDCPA's statement of Congressional findings and declaration of purpose, and it does not provide for a cause of action. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692.
While it does not appear that courts in this Circuit have addressed whether a plaintiff is required to identify a specific provision of the FDCPA in order to state a viable claim, other courts have dismissed complaints for failure to do so. See, e.g., Birdette v. Capitol One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 12-11640-F, 2012 WL 8319317, at *1 (11th Cir. July 25, 2012) (finding that the plaintiff "failed to allege any facts to support a claim that the defendants violated the provisions of the FDCPA" and affirming dismissal of FDCPA claim where, "although [the plaintiff]
The situation before the Court is similar to the facing the Eleventh Circuit in Birdette:
2012 WL 8319317, at *1 (emphasis added). Like the plaintiff in Birdette, plaintiff here "failed to identify which specific provisions or subsections of the FDCPA formed the basis for his allegations." Id. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim, and it could dismiss the amended complaint on that ground alone.
Although plaintiff failed to specify an FDCPA provision in his amended complaint or in his opposition, he finally did identify one in his surreply. See Pl.'s Surreply at 1 ("Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, a debt collector may not `use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.'"). A court "generally refuses to entertain arguments raised for the first time in [a] reply brief," Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 196 (D.C.Cir.1992), and a surreply is normally "limited to addressing only new arguments raised for the first time by the opposing party in their reply briefing and not included in the original motion." Marbury Law Grp., PLLC v. Carl, 729 F.Supp.2d 78, 82 (D.D.C.2010), citing Longwood Vill.
But even if the Court were to construe the amended complaint generously and infer that plaintiff seeks to allege a violation of section 1692e, the Court still finds that he has still failed to state a plausible claim for a violation of the FDCPA. Section 1692e provides that "[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The only allegations in the amended complaint regarding representations made by defendant — as opposed to JPMC — are as follows:
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-29. Based on this letter, plaintiff asserts that defendant violated the FDCPA in five ways:
Id. ¶ 46.
But a review of the letter sent by defendant to plaintiff, attached as an exhibit to defendant's motion to dismiss, see Ex. K to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. #10-12] ("Collection Letter"),
Where, as here, the complaint's factual allegations are contradicted by exhibits incorporated by reference in the complaint and of which the Court may take judicial notice, the Court need no longer accept as true plaintiff's version of events. See, e.g., Kaempe v. Myers, 367 F.3d 958, 963 (D.C.Cir.2004) ("Nor must we accept as true the complaint's factual allegations insofar as they contradict exhibits to the complaint or matters subject to judicial notice."), citing Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir.2002). Thus, because the Collection Letter contradicts plaintiff's assertions of misrepresentations relating to defendant's role as substitute trustee or the foreclosure status of his property, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that defendant engaged in false, deceptive, or misleading representations in violation of the FDCPA based on the conduct set forth in paragraphs 46(a), 46(b), and 46(e) of the amended complaint.
In paragraph 46(c) of the amended complaint, plaintiff claims that defendant violated the FDCPA by "[f]alsley representing the amount of the debt owed to JPMC," Am. Compl. ¶ 46(c), when it stated in the Collection Letter that plaintiff owed a debt of $368,467.16. Id. ¶ 29; see also Collection Letter at ECF 2. Plaintiff does not dispute the amount of this debt or the accuracy of defendant's calculation of that number. Rather, as plaintiff himself puts it, his claim that this statement was false is based entirely on his belief that he "had no legal obligation to pay [JPMC] because [JPMC] was not entitled to enforce the promissory note." Am. Compl. ¶ 17; see also Pl.'s Opp. at 13 ("[Plaintiff] does not owe [JPMC] any amount because [JPMC] is not the holder of the Note.").
But "in the District of Columbia, a foreclosing entity need not be the holder of the Note in order to have standing to foreclose on the related property." Taylor, 85 F.Supp.3d at 70 (D.D.C.2015), citing Duffy v. Bank of Am., N.A., 13 F.Supp.3d 57, 61 (D.D.C.2014) ("[Plaintiff] is incorrect that District of Columbia law requires a foreclosing institution to be the holder of the underlying Note."), and Diaby v. Bierman, 795 F.Supp.2d 108, 113 (D.D.C.2011) (holding that "whether or not defendants are holders of the note is not dispositive as to whether they have standing to foreclose on the property"). "The District of Columbia is a non-judicial foreclosure jurisdiction, which `allows foreclosure pursuant to a power of sale provision contained in any deed of trust.'" Id., quoting Carter v. Bank of Am., N.A., 888 F.Supp.2d 1, 14 (D.D.C.2012).
In Taylor, the court found that "the Deed of Trust clearly provides the Trustee with `power of sale,'" and it determined that the plaintiff's "allegation that Defendants do not hold the Note is irrelevant to whether Defendants can foreclose on Plaintiff's property." Id. The same is true of the deed of trust in this case, which states that "Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale," the property at issue. Ex. B to Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. #10-3] at 4. Thus, plaintiff's assertion that "he does not owe [JPMC] any amount because [JPMC] is not the holder of the Note," Pl.'s Opp. at 13, is without merit. And it follows that plaintiff's claim that defendant violated the FDCPA by "[f]alsely representing the amount of the debt owed to JPMC," Am. Compl. ¶ 46(c) — which is entirely contingent, by his own admission, on his claim that he owes JPMC nothing because it does not hold the promissory note, see Pl.'s Opp. at 13 — also fails.
2012 WL 8319317, at *1. Thus, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable FDCPA claim based on the allegation contained in paragraph 46(d) of the complaint.
For those reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under any provision of the FDCPA, and defendant's motion to dismiss Count I will be granted in its entirety.
The Court will also dismiss plaintiff's class claim in Count II of the amended complaint. Since plaintiff himself has failed to state a viable claim against defendant, he cannot act as the class representative or "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4); see also Brewer v. Holder, 20 F.Supp.3d 4, 19 (D.D.C.2013) (finding that, because class representative's claims "are not viable as a matter of law, she is not an adequate representative of a class," and dismissing the class claims), citing E. Texas Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977) (holding that a plaintiff whose individual claims had failed was not an adequate representative of class claims).
Because the Court finds that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge an assignment to which he was not party or a foreclosure that has not taken place, and because plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the FDCPA, the Court will grant defendant's motion to dismiss Count I, plaintiff's individual FDCPA claim. Under those circumstances, the class claim in Count II will also be dismissed.
A separate order will issue.
To the extent that plaintiff has articulated an actual FDCPA violation, as discussed below, he may indeed have standing to bring this suit to vindicate his statutory rights. See, e.g., Molina v. FDIC, 870 F.Supp.2d 123, 132 (D.D.C.2012) ("For claims under the FDCPA, a plaintiff is not required to show actual damages, but he must at least allege that the defendant made an unlawful attempt to recover his debt."), citing Muldrow v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 766 F.Supp.2d 230, 235 & n. 1 (D.D.C. 2011). But because the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted, dismissal is still warranted.
