United States District Court, D. Arizona
DOMINIC W. LANZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 28, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to submit
supplemental briefing regarding whether Plaintiff Kimberly
Driesen (“Driesen”) has standing to pursue the
claim asserted in her complaint. (Doc. 30.) Having considered
the parties' supplemental briefs (Docs. 31 & 32), the
Court finds that Driesen has standing.
pending before the Court are (1) Defendant RSI Enterprises
Incorporated's (“RSI”) motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 16) and (2) Driesen's motion
for leave to file a surreply (Doc. 22). These motions are
fully briefed and neither party has requested oral argument.
As explained below, the Court denies both motions.
complaint was filed on June 27, 2018. (Doc. 1.) The following
summary assumes the truth of all allegations contained
called Driesen on February 27, 2018 at approximately 10:12
a.m. (Id. ¶ 21.) At that time, RSI left Driesen
the following voicemail: “We have an important message
from RSI Enterprises. This call is from a debt collector.
Call 602-627-2301. Thank you.” (Id. ¶
22.) Driesen listened to this message that day. (Id.
different RSI employee called Driesen on the same day at
approximately 11:18 a.m. (Id. ¶ 27.) At that
time, RSI left Driesen the following voicemail: “We
have an important message from RSI Enterprises. This is a
call from a debt collector. Please call 602-627-2301. Thank
you.” (Id. ¶ 28.)
days later, Driesen received a letter from RSI, dated
February 27, 2018, in which RSI disclosed that it was
attempting to collect a debt and that any information
obtained would be used for that purpose. (Id.
brings one claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692
et seq. Specifically, she alleges that RSI
“violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) by failing to
disclose in its initial communication with [her] that the
communication was an attempt to collect a debt and any
information obtained would be used for that purpose.”
(Doc. 1 ¶ 56.)