Driesen v. RSI Enterprises Inc.

          ORDER

          DOMINIC W. LANZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On 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.

         Also 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.

         BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         The complaint was filed on June 27, 2018. (Doc. 1.) The following summary assumes the truth of all allegations contained therein.

         RSI 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. ¶ 23.)

         A 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.)

         Several 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. ¶¶ 25-26.)

         B. Legal Theory

         Driesen 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.)

         ANALYSIS

         I. Standing

         A. ...