Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02393/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02393-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - 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

Eddie Willie Taylor, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The United States; the U.S. Internal

Revenue Service; the U.S. Department of

Education; the Department of the

Treasury; Consumer Credit Bureaus;

Kroll Factual Data Bureau; CB Cinnovis;

Equifax Credit Information Service;

Experian; Trans Union LLC; Landsafe

Credit Inc.; Lamson Junior College;

Arizona Education Loan Marketing

Corporation; and Southwest Student

Services Corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2393-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants and their respective employees

in state court on October 8, 2009. Dkt. #1-1 at 5-37. Plaintiff claims to be a victim of

identity theft. He alleges that an unknown person used his social security number to take out

a federally guaranteed student loan in or around 1990. He further alleges that the perpetrator

defaulted on the loan and that from 1990 through 2008, the federal government has seized

his income tax refunds, tax rebates, and social security payments. Id. at 8-9. The action was

removed to this Court on November 16, 2009. Dkt. #1.

Defendants Trans Union LLC, Kroll Factual Data, Inc., and Landsafe Credit Inc. have

filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Dkt. ##15, 35,

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 47 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

42. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and CBC Innovis have joined the

motions. Dkt. ##13, 14. The motions are fully briefed. No party has requested oral

argument. For reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motions and dismiss the

complaint without prejudice.

I. The Motions to Dismiss.

To avoid a dismissal, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “The

plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

unlawfully,” demanding instead sufficient factual allegations to allow “the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court

to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has

not ‘show[n]’ – ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 1950 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2)).

Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed because it does not satisfy the pleading

requirements set forth in Twombly and Iqbal. The complaint references numerous state and

federal statutes, asserts violations of a host of constitutional rights, and identifies various

state law theories of liability, but does not include any individual counts or separate claims

for relief. Nor does the complaint give each specific Defendant fair notice of which claims

are asserted against it and the basis for those claims. Instead, Plaintiff lumps Defendants

(and their employees) together in undefined assertions of liability. Plaintiff’s allegations “are

insufficient in that they are ascribed to defendants collectively rather than to individual

defendants.” Arikat v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 430 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1020 (N.D. Cal.

2006).

Because no Defendant has filed a responsive pleading, Plaintiff may file an amended

complaint as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A); Nolan v. Fitzharris, 450

F.2d 958, 958 (9th Cir. 1971) (a motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” within the

meaning of Rule 15). Plaintiff shall have until March 19, 2010 to file an amended complaint.

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 47 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

II. Plaintiff’s Obligations.

Plaintiff must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”).

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th

Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys

of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)

(“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he

litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet

website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

For purposes of the amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint “shall contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a

demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading

requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs must be

numbered in consecutive order. Each paragraph must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

Plaintiff is advised that vague references to violations of statutory and constitutional

rights are insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8. The amended complaint

must give each individual Defendant “fair notice of what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and the

grounds upon which it is based.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005).

This includes some factual basis for the claim and the specific legal theory supporting the

claim. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Plaintiff is further advised that he is responsible for having the summons and

complaint properly served on each Defendant within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) of the

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 47 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). If Plaintiff fails to prosecute

this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss

the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54

(9th Cir. 1995).

III. Removal Jurisdiction.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have original jurisdiction over cases

involving a federal question, that is, cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties

of the United States.” The case was removed to this Court on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff requests that the Court “strike” the notice of removal and

remand the case to state court. See Dkt. #28 at 1-2. That request will be denied.

The complaint, among other things, alleges that Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s

rights under the United States Constitution (Dkt. #1-1 at 11), have violated the federal civil

RICO statute (id. at 19), and have willfully failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting

Act (id. at 31). The Court finds that federal question jurisdiction existed at the time of

removal.

IV. Service of Process.

Defendant Kroll Factual Data, Inc. has sought dismissal on the ground of improper

service. Dkt. #35 at 3-6. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has served the wrong party: Kroll

Factual Data Bureau instead of Kroll Factual Data, Inc., a Colorado corporation. Id. The

Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper service without prejudice. If

Plaintiff files an amended complaint naming Kroll Factual Data, Inc. as a defendant, and if

Defendant believes that Plaintiff has yet to effect proper service of process, Defendant may

file a renewed motion to dismiss.

V. Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike.

Plaintiff’s motions to strike (Dkt. ##29, 43, 44) are nothing more than responses to

the motions to dismiss, and therefore will be denied. Plaintiff’s attention is directed to

Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule provides that a motion to strike

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 47 Filed 02/26/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

may be filed only if authorized by statute or rule, or if it seeks to strike any part of a filing

on the ground that it is prohibited by statute, rule, or court order. LRCiv 7.2(m). If Plaintiff

believes that a defense motion should be denied, he shall file a response explaining why;

Plaintiff shall not move to “strike” every motion filed by a Defendant.

VI. Plaintiff’s Other Motions.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Landsafe Credit Inc. is in default, and he has filed

alternative motions for laches, for summary judgment, or for judgment on the pleadings.

Dkt. #44. The Clerk has not entered Defendant’s default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief (Dkt. ##15, 35, 42)

are granted. The alternative motions for more definite statement are denied

as moot.

2. The complaint (Dkt. #1-1 at 5-37) is dismissed without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff shall have until March 19, 2010 to file an amended complaint. 

4. Defendant Kroll Factual Data, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for failure to name

proper party and for improper service (Dkt. #35) is denied without prejudice.

5. Plaintiff’s motions to strike (Dkt. ##29, 43, 44) are denied.

6. Plaintiff’s motions for laches, for summary judgment, and for judgment on the

pleadings (Dkt. #44) are denied.

DATED this 25th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 47 Filed 02/26/10 Page 5 of 5