In Korzeniowski v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. 2010 WL 466162 (D.Conn.2010), Judge Eginton held that a bare bones Complaint merely setting forth the FDCPA’s legal requirements failed under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twonbly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ascroft v. Iqbal 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), explaining:

[P]laintiff’s complaint lacks any factual allegations entitled to deference under Iqbal by the Court. As the Supreme Court stated in Iqbal:  A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders “naked assertions” devoid of further factual enhancement. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.  Plaintiff’s complaint is a laundry list of the elements of the statutory violations without any factual allegations that raise the right to relief to plausible. In fact, plaintiff’s complaint is the epitome of a complaint that “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. Therefore, the Court will dismiss these counts.