Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hodges v. Navient Solutions, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 11, 2018

Telicia Hodges, Plaintiffs,
v.
Navient Solutions, LLC, Defendant.

          Mona K. Majzoub U.S. Magistrate Judge

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS [7]

          Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge

         Pro 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. Id.

         Defendant removed the case to this Court on October 26, 2017. [1]. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss [4] on November 16, 2017 and an Amended Motion to Dismiss [7] on February 20, 2018. Plaintiff filed a Response [12] on May 11, 2018, to which Defendant replied on May 16, 2018. [13].

         The 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 [7] is GRANTED.

         Factual Background

         Plaintiff 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 noncompliance. [sic].
(Dkt. 1-2).

         Legal Standard

         Defendant 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

         Analysis

         Defendant 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 FCRA.

         I. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.