Robert Hill v. SCA Credit Services, Inc ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1554
ROBERT HILL; MARY HILL, his wife, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
SCA CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-29565)
Submitted: October 19, 2015 Decided: November 10, 2015
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ralph C. Young, Jed R. Nolan, HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG &
POLLARD, PLLC, Fayetteville, West Virginia; Troy N. Giatras, THE
GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellants. Paul C. Kuhnel, Kevin P. Oddo, John T. Jessee,
Joseph M. Rainsbury, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Hill and Mary Hill appeal from the district court’s
order granting Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion and
dismissing their amended class action complaint for failure to
state a claim, confining their appeal to the district court’s
dismissal of their claims alleging violations of the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA), see W. Va.
Code Ann. §§ 46A-1-101 to 46A-8-102 (LexisNexis 2015).
We affirm.
We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim de novo, “assuming all
well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint
to be true.” Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir.
2011). “To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), plaintiffs’ ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level,’ thereby
‘nudg[ing] their claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)). Although we “must accept the truthfulness of
all factual allegations” in the complaint, Burnette v. Fahey,
687 F.3d 171, 180 (4th Cir. 2012), statements of bare legal
conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). We will accept the
conclusions the plaintiffs draw from the facts “only to the
2
extent they are plausible based on the factual allegations.”
Burnette, 687 F.3d at 180. Additionally, like the district
court, we may consider documents attached to the complaint.
Sec’y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d
700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). Where a conflict exists between “the
bare allegations of the complaint” and any attached exhibit,
“the exhibit prevails.” Fayetteville Inv’rs v. Commercial
Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1465 (4th Cir. 1991).
We conclude after review of the amended class action
complaint, the letters attached thereto, and the parties’ briefs
that the district court did not reversibly err in dismissing the
complaint. The Hills did not articulate facts that, when
accepted as true, demonstrate plausible claims for relief under
the WVCCPA. See W. Va. Code Ann.
§§ 46A-2-124, -125, -127, -128, & 46A-6-102(7)(M); Chevy Chase
Bank v. McCamant, 512 S.E.2d 217, 225 (W. Va. 1998); Orlando v.
Fin. One of W. Va., Inc., 369 S.E.2d 882, 885 (W. Va. 1988).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hill v. SCA
Credit Servs., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-29565 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 22,
2015).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3