United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO
J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge
se Plaintiff Telicia Hodges filed a lawsuit in 44th
District Court, in Oakland County, Michigan, on September 22,
2017. She alleged that Defendant Navient Solutions, LLC
“failed to note the credit report account was under
dispute within 30 days, ” in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Fair
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). [Dkt. 1-2].
Plaintiff further claims that Defendant “continued to
report, ” even after she notified it of the violations.
removed the case to this Court on October 26, 2017. .
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss  on November 16, 2017
and an Amended Motion to Dismiss  on February 20, 2018.
Plaintiff filed a Response  on May 11, 2018, to which
Defendant replied on May 16, 2018. .
Court now finds the motions suitable for determination
without a hearing, in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).
For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Amended
Motion to Dismiss  is GRANTED.
executed a federal student loan promissory note under the
Federal Family Education Loan Program (“FFELP”)
on October 2, 2002. (Dkt. 7-2, Pg. ID 87). Plaintiff filed
this lawsuit on September 22, 2017. Plaintiff's reasons
for her claim are set forth as follows:
Defendants failed to note the credit report account was under
dispute within 30 days which is a violation of FDCPA 807(8)
and FCRA 623(a)(3). After I notified them by certified mail
of the violations, they continued to report therefore they
are liable for damages as per FCRA 616(a)(1) for willful
moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive
such a motion, Plaintiff must plead factual content that
allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that
Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A
plaintiff's complaint must provide ‘more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'”
Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Courts are not required to accept
as true legal conclusions framed as factual allegations.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Id. (internal citations omitted).
“[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.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting
asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's case for two
reasons: first, because Defendant is not a debt collector
within the meaning of the FDCPA; and second, because there is
no private right of action under § 623(a)(3) of the