United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. Petronykoriak, Plaintiff,
Equifax Information Services LLC et al., Defendants.
R. Grand Mag. Judge
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO
DISMISS [17, 27]
E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed this action in Wayne County Circuit Court on February
12, 2019, alleging various federal statutory and state law
tort claims based on allegedly false information on his
credit report. Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC
timely removed the case to federal court on March 15, 2019.
(ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) Two defendants, AT&T Corp. and
Avis Budget Group, move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12. (ECF No. 17, PageID.212; ECF No. 27,
PagesID.265.) Plaintiff failed to respond to either
defendants' Rule 12 motion.
brings eleven causes of action against seventeen named
defendants arising from the allegedly false information
reported by defendants Equifax, Trans Union, and Experian.
(ECF No. 1-2, PageID.13.) These claims appear to arise out of
plaintiff's assertion that his “credit was
excellent, ” but that based on false information on his
credit report, plaintiff was unable to obtain a credit card
and a loan. (Id. at PageID.13.)
does not include allegations specifically identifying
AT&T and Avis. Instead, the complaint includes various
allegations regarding “ALL LISTED DEFENDANTS, ”
including that they all: failed to take action to correct
false consumer reports; failed to adopt procedures to assure
reports were accurate; and disseminated false information
about plaintiff, despite the fact that “ALL LISTED
DEFENDANTS were notified of the errors and disputes.”
(ECF No. 1-1, PageID.16-17.) Plaintiff argues that these
actions were in violation of various federal statutes,
including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”),
the Fair Credit Billing Act (“FCBA”), and the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
Additional counts are brought against AT&T and Avis under
various state tort law theories, including negligence,
defamation, “malicious use of a telephone, ” and
filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on April 5, 2019. (ECF. No. 17.) AT&T
filed an answer on April 2, 2019 (ECF No. 14) and filed this
motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) on April 24, 2019. (ECF No.
post-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) is not
permitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). But an
untimely motion to dismiss “may be properly considered
as one for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(c), and evaluated, nonetheless, under the standards for
dismissal under 12(b)(6).” Doe v. Sentech Empl.
Servs., 186 F.Supp.3d 732, 736 (E.D. Mich. 2016)
(quotations omitted); see also Scheid v. Fanny Farmer
Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 n.1 (6th Cir.
1988). Accordingly, the Court will construe AT&T's
motion as one for judgment on the pleadings and analyze it
under the same standard as one to dismiss.
deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must “construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and
accept all allegations as true.” Keys v. Humana,
Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 608 (6th Cir. 2012). “To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plausible claim
need not contain “detailed factual allegations, ”
but it must contain more than “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
pleading standard is less stringent for plaintiffs proceeding
pro se, but does not “compel the courts to
conjure up unpleaded facts to support conclusory
allegations.” Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567,
577 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Kamppi v. Ghee, 208
F.3d 213 (table), 2000 WL 303018, at *1 (6th Cir. 2000)).
complaint fails to allege specific facts with respect to
either AT&T or Avis. As a result, the Court has no way of
knowing what relationship these defendants have to this case.
Moreover, the Court is unable to assess whether the conduct
of these defendants was lawful or reasonable with respect to
plaintiff as a consumer. Because the complaint fails to
allege facts with any specificity, and relies on conclusory
allegations, it fails to state a claim against AT&T or
complaint includes similarly conclusory allegations with
respect to “ALL LISTED DEFENDANTS, ” and, for
reasons outlined below, these general ...