Uwagbai v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FREDRICK UW AGBAI, 	§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. H-26-2790
§
JEFFERSON 	CAPITAL 	SYSTEMS,
LLC,
§
§
§
Defendant. 	§
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC's,
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (Document No. 	17). Having considered the Defendant's
motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion
should be granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is a matter involving alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff Uwagbai contends that Defendant Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC ("Defendant") violated § 227 of the TCP A when it "sent the
Plaintiff two pre-recorded text messages[.]" 1 Based on the foregoing, on March 19,
2026, Plaintiff filed suit in the Harris County Justice Court, Precinct 4, Place 2,
1 Notice 	of Removal, Document No. 	1, Exhibit A at 11 	(Plaintiff's Amended
Citation).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02790 Document 20 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

asserting a claim against Defendant for violation of the TCP A. 2 On April 8, 2026,
Defendant removed the case to this Court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction.
On May 15, 2026, Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3 Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's
motion to dismiss either by the date required under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or by the date of this-Order.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upori which
relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more than ... 'labels
and conclusions."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "[t]he
'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable
2 See Plaintiff's Amended Citation, supra note 1 at 11.
3 See Defendant, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC's, _Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, Document
No. 17 at 1.
2
Case 4:26-cv-02790 Document 20 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

to the plaintiff."' In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F .3d 464,
467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. at 570.
"Conversely, 'when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point
of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court."' Cuvillier
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs claim, contending that Plaintiff fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff did not respond to
Defendant's motion to 	dismiss, 	failing to rebut ·or offer evidence to 	counter
Defendant's contentions. 4 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, failure to respond is taken as
a representation of no opposition. S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.4. Regardless of Plaintiffs
failure to respond to the pending motion to dismiss, the Court will consider the merits
of Plaintiffs claim against Defendant. The Court construes all pro. se 	filings
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
4 The Court notes Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 9 at 1.
However, the Court notes that this response was filed on 4/10/2026, over a month prior to
the present motion to dismiss. As such, the Court declines to consider Plaintiffs Response
to Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 9, as a response to the present motion to dismiss.
3
Case 4:26-cv-02790 Document 20 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated § 227 of the TCPA when it "sent the
Plaintiff two pre-recorded text messages[.]" 5 Defendant contends that "Plaintiffs
TCPA claim fails as a matter of law because the TCPA does not prohibit sending a
text message. " 6
The TCPA provides, in relevant part, that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any
person within the United States ... to initiate any telephone call to any residential
telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
the prior express consent of the called party[.]" 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l). To be liable
under§ 227 of the TCPA, a defendant must "make a call[.]" Ybarra v. Dish Network,
LLC, 807 F.3d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 2015). Furthermore, "a call in which a prerecorded
voice might, but does not, play is not a violation of the TCPA."1d. at 641 ..
Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was sent "two pre-recorded text messages[.]" In
response, Defendant contends that "[n]ot only is Plaintiff unable to present evidence
that any alleged prerecorded voice actually played he is also unable to present
evidence that JCAP's [Defendant's] messages included an audible voice, at all." 7
5 Plaintiff's Amended Citation, supra note 1 at 11.
6 Defendant, 	Jefferson 	Capital Systems, 	LLC 's, 	Motion 	to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, Document
No. 17 at 5.
7 Defendant, 	Jefferson 	Capital Systems, 	LLC's, 	Motion 	to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint with Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, Document
No. 17 at 5.
4
Case 4:26-cv-02790 Document 20 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff offers no rebuttal. Based on the Court's own independent review of the
record in this matter, the Court finds that the communications in question in this case
are nothing more than text messages and that no call was made. Based on the
foregoing, and the Fifth Circuit's clear guidance that the TCPA only applies when a
prerecorded voice actually plays, the Court finds that the TCPA is inapplicable here.
As such, the Court finds that Defendant's motion should be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant, Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC's, Motion to
Dismiss 	Plaintiffs 	Amended 	Complaint 	with 	Prejudice 	and 	Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (Document No. 17) is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that all pending motions in this matter are hereby DENIED AS
MOOT. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Jefferson Capital Systems,
LLC is DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this z_3 	day of June, 2026.
5
CJ)~ 	• 	-
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02790 Document 20 Filed 06/23/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5