Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02102/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02102-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Rosciano, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02102-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 Before the court is Defendant Midland’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 47). Plaintiff has not filed a response. 

 The court previously granted Midland’s original motion to dismiss, finding that 

Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against Midland. 

(Doc. 39.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, however, the court 

granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 43), 

filed February 17, 2015, fails to correct the defects in Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 

1). As they did in the original Complaint, Plaintiff’s first two causes of action still either 

rely on facts that Plaintiff has not pled or seek damages under statutory provisions 

inapplicable to a debt-collector defendant such as Midland. Alleging that the three 

defendants Plaintiff has named were acting “in concert” (Doc. 43 at 4) does not cure this 

deficiency, as the court has previously explained. (Doc. 39 at 4.) And even assuming TMobile violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting on his credit negatively, 

Case 2:14-cv-02102-NVW Document 51 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiff has cited no authority for the view that Midland assumed responsibility for that 

conduct through its subsequent purchase of Plaintiff’s debt to T-Mobile. 

 The First Amended Complaint adds a third cause of action alleging, in its entirety, 

“By reason of foregoing, defendant has caused plaintiff’s credit to be wrongly reported 

and slandered, all to his proximate cause and damages.” (Doc. 43 at 5.) It is not clear to 

whom the “defendant” in the third cause of action refers. But even if it refers to Midland, 

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. To prevail on a cause of action for slander, a plaintiff 

must show that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement, that the statement 

was published to a third party, and that the defendant was at fault, which “may consist of 

knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard of truth or falsity, or negligence.” See Boswell v. 

Phx. Newspapers, 152 Ariz. 1, 3 & n.1, 730 P.2d 178, 180 & n.1 (Ct. App. 1985) 

(citations omitted). Here, the First Amended Complaint nowhere alleges that Midland 

made any statements about Plaintiff, much less false and defamatory statements that were 

published to a third party with fault. Plaintiff claims that “defendants reported [his 

failure to pay] upon his credit derogatively” and “[d]efendants . . . reported the event 

derogatorily notwithstanding the letter and facts of the matter.” (Doc. 43 at 3 (ellipsis in 

original).) But this kind of collective, unspecified pleading is insufficient to state a claim. 

And in any event, these allegations appear in Plaintiff’s first cause of action, which 

asserts violations of statutory provisions that cannot apply to Midland. Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Midland’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 47) is granted. The Clerk 

shall terminate this case as against Defendant Midland. 

 Dated: April 1st, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02102-NVW Document 51 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 2