United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION & ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR MORE
F. Cox U.S. District Judge.
case involves a pro se Plaintiff who filed a claim
affidavit in small claims court, in state court, that
indicated he was asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against two
Defendants. The matter is before the Court on Motions for
More Definite Statement filed by Defendants, who removed the
matter to federal court. As explained below, the Court shall
GRANT the motions to the extent that the Court shall order
Plaintiff to file a complaint that provides basic information
about this claims against Defendants, and indicates whether
or not he demands a jury trial.
pro se, Plaintiff Jeremy Birmingham filed an
“Affidavit and Claim” in small claims court in
the 40th Judicial District in Michigan stating
that the reasons for the claim are “Breach of contract,
misrepresentation, fraud, damage to credit worthiness,
various FDCPA violations” and seeking $4, 500.00 in
damages. (D.E. No. 1-2 at Pg ID 10). Plaintiff named two
Defendants: 1) GC Services, LP (“GC”); and 2)
Nelnet Loan Services, Inc. (“Nelnet”).
Defendant GC removed the matter to this Court, asserting that
this Court has federal question jurisdiction over any claims
brought under the FDCPA and asking this Court to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining
Order issued on September 28, 2017, this Court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state
law claims, and those claims were remanded to state court.
Only Plaintiff's FDCPA claims remain in this federal
both filed Motions for More Definite Statement (Docket Entry
Nos. 11 & 12) in this case.
October 11, 2017, this Court scheduled a hearing on both of
those Motions for More Definite Statement for December 14,
Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to those motions
by October 19, 2017. (See Docket Entry No. 17).
After Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions, this Court
issued a Show Order. Plaintiff finally filed a response to
the Show Cause Order on or about November 28, 2017. (Docket
Entry No. 21).
time they filed their motions, this Court had not yet
remanded Plaintiff's state-law claims back to state
court. Thus, their motions address all the claims. But now,
the only claims that remain in this Court are Plaintiff's
FDCPA claims. So the Court need only consider the Motions for
More Definite Statement as they relate to Plaintiff's
Netnet's motion notes that while Defendant has sued two
Defendants, Plaintiff has not identified which claims are
asserted against which Defendant. It also observes that the
“complaint” Plaintiff filed (which was simply a
small claims court form) does not set forth factual
allegations supporting the claims. Netnet argues that
“[t]o the extent the Plaintiff alleges violation of the
FDCPA, ” it seeks “the details of the provisions
of the FDCPA that were allegedly violated, and how Nelnet
allegedly violated them.” (Nelnet's Motion at 4).
Defendant GC's Motion for More Definite Statement makes
the same arguments.
Court held a hearing on Defendants' motions, as
scheduled, on December 14, 2017. Although he had notice of
the hearing, Plaintiff failed to appear for the hearing.
12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions
for more ...