DAVID F. HAMILTON, United States Of America District Judge
Plaintiff Vonnie T. Hudson sued defendants ACE Cash Express, Inc., many of its officers, and Goleta nationwide Bank in making a alleged « payday » loan in violation of Indiana usury legislation, the Truth that is federal in Act, 15 U.S.C. В§ 1601 et seq., and also the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt businesses Act, 18 U.S.C. В§ 1961 et seq. The court can also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims because Hudson asserts two claims arising under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. В§ 1331 1367. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), defendants have actually relocated to dismiss all claims that are asserted failure to mention a claim upon which relief may be provided. For the reasons stated below, the court funds defendants’ movement to dismiss.
Dismissal Standard For purposes of the movement to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court takes since true the plaintiff’s factual allegations and attracts all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s benefit. Veazey v. Communications Cable of Chicago, Inc., 194 F.3d 850, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). « Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate as long as the plaintiff could show no collection of facts to get his claims that could entitle him to relief. » Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 648 (7th Cir. 2001).
However, a plaintiff whom pleads extra facts may plead by herself away from court by showing that she has no right to recoup. Klug v. Chicago class Reform Bd. of Trustees, 197 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of general general public worker’s First Amendment claim based on detail by detail issue); Jefferson v. Ambroz, 90 F.3d 1291, 1296 (7th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal); Thomas v. Farley, 31 F.3d 557, 558-59 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal). In this instance, Hudson connected a few documents that are pivotal her problem.
The court may examine these papers in determining defendants’ movement to dismiss. CONTINUE