United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub Mag. Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
E. LEVY United States District Judge.
the Court is plaintiff Steven Neff's motion for judgment
on the pleadings. (Dkt. 24.) Plaintiff seeks judgment on the
sole remaining count against defendants Schlee &
Stillman, LLC, and LVNV Funding, LLC.
reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is granted.
Steven Neff is an individual alleging he has a debt
obligation arising from his Credit One Bank credit card,
which was used “primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.” (Dkt. 1 at 4.) He alleges
defendant LVNV Funding, LLC acquired the debt after plaintiff
defaulted on his obligations to pay off the debt, and LVNV
Funding, LLC then hired defendant Schlee & Stillman, LLC
to collect the debt. (Id. at 4.)
September 25, 2015, Schlee & Stillman, LLC sent plaintiff
a letter, informing plaintiff the letter was “an
attempt by a debt collector to collect a debt.” (Dkt.
1-1 at 2.) The letter was titled “Re: LVNV Funding LLC
Assignee of Credit One Bank, N.A.” (Id.)
receiving this letter, plaintiff filed a complaint against
defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”). (Dkt. 1.) Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss all counts. (Dkt. 5.)
August 12, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 12.) Plaintiff was
permitted to proceed with Count One, which alleged defendants
violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2) of the FDCPA by failing
to effectively provide the name of the creditor to whom the
debt was owed in the September 25, 2015 letter.
(Id.) On October 21, 2016, plaintiff filed this
motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. 24.)
standard of review for a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as for
a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Fritz v. Charter
Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010).
“For purposes of a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the
pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and
the motion may be granted only if the moving party is
nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.”
Id. (quoting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.
Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007)).
argues he is entitled to judgment on the pleadings because
there is no dispute that the name of the creditor, Credit One
Bank, was not effectively provided in the letter received
from defendants, and because the Court already decided the
issue in its order granting in part and denying in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 24 at 3-5.)
Defendants argue that whether the creditor was adequately
identified is a question of fact for the jury to decide, and
that plaintiff has not proven-and defendant denies-that
plaintiff qualifies as a consumer, that the debt arose out of
a consumer transaction, and that defendant LVNV Funding, LLC
was a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA. (Dkt. 26 at
initial matter, defendants argue that they do “not
admit” plaintiff is a consumer, that the debt arose
from a consumer transaction, or that LVNV Funding, LLC is a
debt collector. (Dkt. 26 at 2.) The argument is based on
their answer to the complaint. For each of these three
arguments, defendants wrote in the ...