Ronald Williams v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Ronald and Jann G. Williams appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging "violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss. United States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Williams’ FDCPA claim because the Williams failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants were “debt collectors.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector” as one who “regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another”).
The district court properly dismissed the Williams’ fraudulent misrepresentation claim because the Williams failed to allege with particularity plausible allegations of fraud. See United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054-55 (9th Cir.2011) (claims of fraud must be plead with particularity and plausibility).