Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190710_0002707.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-21 13:58:23
Document Index: 536306753

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1681', '§ 1331', '§ 636', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681']

FindACase™ | Wicker v. Armada Corp. of Nevada
Wicker v. Armada Corp. of Nevada
DAN WICKER, Plaintiff,
ARMADA CORP. OF NEVADA, Defendant.
Plaintiff Dan Wicker, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Defendant Armada Corp. of Nevada on August 22, 2018, in the Small Claims Division of the State of Michigan's 46thJudicial District Court in Southfield, Michigan, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a).[1] (Docket no. 1 at 7-11.) Plaintiff removed the case to the General Civil Division of the 46th District Court on August 31, 2018. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendant then removed the case to this court on September 28, 2018, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Id. at 1-2.) Before the court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Docket no. 6.) Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's Motion, and the time for doing so has passed.[2] This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Docket no. 8.) The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings, dispenses with a hearing pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), and issues this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 6) be GRANTED and that this matter be dismissed in its entirety.
The factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint are somewhat incomprehensible. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a debt collector that does business in Michigan. Plaintiff asserts that he does not have an account or service with Defendant. According to Plaintiff, however, “Defendant alleges [that it has] properly notified Plaintiff of [a] collection account but could not verify [a] current address for mail service.” Plaintiff alleges that he disputed the account in writing with all three credit bureaus in June and July of 2018. On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff called Defendant to verify information, but Defendant allegedly could not verify a current address to which the required documents (i.e., notice of intent to collect a debt) were mailed. Plaintiff claims that “a ‘reasonable' person would agree that the information provided by Defendant would constitute an error under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1).” He also claims that Defendant failed to investigate Plaintiff's dispute, citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(5). Plaintiff's Complaint does not include a prayer for relief; however, the state court Affidavit and Claim form that accompanies Plaintiff's Complaint seemingly indicates that Plaintiff seeks $600.00 in damages. (Docket no. 1 at 7-11.)
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Docket no. 6.) When deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2002). The plaintiff must provide “‘a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). But this statement “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The plaintiff cannot rely on “legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action;” instead, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This “facial plausibility” is required to “unlock the doors of discovery.” Id. To make this determination, the Iqbal Court set out the following two-step analysis:
Plaintiff claims that “a ‘reasonable' person would agree that the information provided by Defendant would constitute an error under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1).” He also claims that Defendant failed to investigate ...