MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID C. NYE, District Judge.

I. OVERVIEW

Pending before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss: one filed by Defendant Akerman LLP ("Akerman") (Dkt. 19), the other filed jointly by Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC ("Ocwen") and Perkins Coie LLP ("Perkins Coie") (Dkt. 23). Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the motion without a hearing. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS both Motions to Dismiss, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Terry Kerr and Dennis Kerr ("the Kerrs") filed their original complaint in this case on March 30, 2018. Dkt. 1. In their motion to dismiss the original complaint, Ocwen and Perkins Coie provided the following background information:1

Dkt. 3, at 2-4.

The Court ultimately granted the Motion to Dismiss, and simultaneously granted the Kerrs leave to amend their complaint. Dkt. 17. On July 27, 2018, the Kerrs filed their Amended Complaint. Dkt. 18. Akerman filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 8, 2018 (Dkt. 19) and Ocwen and Perkins Coie jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 16, 2018 (Dkt. 23).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a claim if the plaintiff has "fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." "A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a `lack of a cognizable legal theory' or `the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.'" Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). "This is not an onerous burden." Johnson, 534 F.3d at 1121. A complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," but it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The complaint must also contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must view the "complaint in the light most favorable to" the claimant and "accept[] all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, as well as any reasonable inference drawn from them." Johnson, 534 F.3d at 1122.

The Court must construe this complaint "liberally," as the Kerrs are proceeding pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation omitted). "[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988)).

IV. ANALYSIS

While not entirely clear, the Kerrs' Amended Complaint appears to include the following claims: (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) racial animus (4) defamation through libel and slander (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

In dismissing the Kerrs' original complaint, the Court explained that the "factual allegations [set forth in the complaint] are severely deficient. . . . the Kerrs are proceeding pro se, but they have provided no concrete details as to what actions Defendants have taken that justify this suit." Dkt. 17, at 5-6. After reviewing the Kerrs' Amended Complaint, it is clear that these deficiencies remain.

Once again, the Kerrs' factual allegations are conclusory and lack the necessary specifics that might give Defendants notice of the factual basis of the claims asserted against them. As the Court explained above, the complaint need not include "detailed factual allegations," but there must be enough factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. The Kerrs' complaint falls woefully short in this regard. Even construing the Amended Complaint liberally, the Kerrs have failed to state any claim upon which the Court can grant relief and dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. 19; Dkt. 23) are GRANTED.

As the Court has already granted the Kerrs leave to file an Amended Complaint once before—and in light of the implausible nature of the Kerrs' allegations—the Court deems it futile to allow the Kerrs yet another opportunity to amend their complaint. Accordingly, their Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJDUCE.

V. ORDER