United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Ray F. Bueno, Plaintiff,

v.

University of Miami,

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-22831-Civ-Scola

Order Requiring More Definite Statement

Upon review of the complaint and the briefing on Defendant University of 

Miami’s motion to dismiss, the Court hereby orders the Plaintiff to file a more 

definite statement by way of an amended complaint in conformity with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). See Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1083 

n.6 (11th Cir. 1996) (acknowledging district courts’ “inherent authority” to 

require plaintiffs to file more definite statements sua sponte). 

This case concerns a student loan debt. The Plaintiff purports to state a 

claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), against the 

University of Miami for reporting inaccurate information to credit reporting 

agencies. (See Compl. ¶¶ 49-60, ECF No. 1.) The University moves to dismiss 

this claim, in part, on the basis that the Plaintiff fails to allege an actual 

inaccuracy. (See Mot. 12-14, ECF No. 18.) Both sides’ arguments turn on an 

email from a University representative to the Plaintiff, which is attached to the 

complaint and says: “‘UM will personally will be facilitating this issue and 

absolving you from the remaining balance as well as the payment you have just 

made [. . .] no further action relating to payments will be pursued from your 

account.’” (See Mot. 13 (quoting ECF No. 1-5).)

While the Plaintiff seems to take this e-mail to be an admission that he 

did not owe the University the stated balance (see Compl. ¶ 28), the University 

seems to take it to literally mean that it would simply absolve the Plaintiff of 

the debt in the future with no indication as to the balance’s accuracy. (Mot. 

13.) The University emphasizes the future tense in the e-mail indicating that 

the remaining balance will be absolved. 

The Plaintiff’s sparse allegations concerning the nature of the debt do not 

help in resolving the University’s challenge. His complaint describes the debt in

a mere four sentences that doubtlessly leave out useful information. (Compl.

¶¶ 27-30.) In those meagre phrases, the Court is told that the above e-mail was 

sent to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2022, (see Compl. ¶ 28; ECF No. 1-5), but the 

Court is also informed that the Defendant did have a student loan account 

with the University leading into March 2022. (Compl. ¶ 27.) 

Case 1:22-cv-22831-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 1 of 2
So, the nature of the inaccuracy remains unclear. Is the Plaintiff claiming 

that no balance should have ever been reported to begin with? Or was the 

balance reported incorrect? Additionally, when was the inaccuracy first 

reported by University? The questions abound. Although the Court focuses 

here on the inaccuracy issue, it notes that based on the parties’ briefing, other 

facts seem to be missing from the complaint as well, including the role of a 

third-party named “ECSI” in the debt’s reporting process. (See ECF No. 1-5.) 

In sum, the Plaintiff has put together a complaint that leaves much to be 

wanted, doubtlessly falling short of the pleading requirements set forth in 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Surely, the facts of this case turn on 

more than just four sentences. Accordingly, the Court orders him to file a more 

definite statement in the form of an amended complaint consistent with Rule 

12(e). Failure to abide by this Order will result in dismissal. For now, the 

University’s motion (ECF No. 18) is denied, without prejudice, as moot.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on December 7, 2022. 

 _________________________ ______

 Robert N. Scola, Jr.

 United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22831-RNS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 2 of 2