Plaintiff met the pleading standard for an FDCPA action. However, it is unlikely the claims would survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the "[Amended] Complaint presents no facts that plausibly draw into question Defendants' ownership over the Loan or management of Loan payments.” Reyes, 2013 WL 3874527, at *2. When considering the Note and the endorsements relied upon in the Amended Complaint, the chain of ownership is clear and Plaintiff's bare allegations of forgery do not create a plausible claim of their own. 6 . I do not address the litigation privilege argument because, as explained below, Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the MCDCA. 7 . A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint. Battlefield Builders, Inc. v. Swango, 743 F.2d 1060, 1063 (4th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, to the extent the allegations and
holding that plaintiff cannot introduce new allegations or new facts in opposition to a motion to dismiss holding that a plaintiff cannot amend the complaint  in a memorandum in opposition to a motion to dismiss  because such amendment fails to satisfy utahs pleading requirements citations omitted holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment holding plaintiffs reference to and attachment of franchise agreement excerpts in opposition to defendants motion did not convert motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not introduce support for arguments beyond the allegations in the complaint holding that motion for a new trial whether for guilt or punishment requires a valid legal claim a court cannot grant a new trial unless the defendant shows that he is entitled to one under the law