United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS [ECF NO. 7]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
Marzouq brings this action against the United States
Department of Education (the “Department”),
alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”) by failing to properly investigate
Marzouq's claims that federal student loans were
fraudulently obtained in his name; the Department reported
the allegedly fraudulent loans to credit reporting agencies,
and Marzouq maintains that his credit score was harmed as a
Department moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1); it says that this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign
immunity. Marzouq says that Congress waived the United
States' sovereign immunity against civil suits for
damages in the FCRA.
Court finds that the FCRA does not contain a clear waiver of
sovereign immunity that would subject the United States to
civil suits for damages; the Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over Marzouq's claim.
Department's motion to dismiss is
lost his wallet in 2012; in 2016, after obtaining his credit
report, he noticed that several fraudulent student loans were
reported. In early 2017, Marzouq sent a letter to Equifax,
the credit reporting agency, disputing the reported loans.
Equifax opened an investigation and forwarded Marzouq's
inquiry to the Department. On April 2, 2017, Marzouq received
the results of Equifax's investigation-the Department
allegedly did not remove the fraudulent loans from
Marzouq's credit report. Marzouq says the
Department's failure to correct the errors in his credit
file caused him to suffer “credit and emotional
damages, ” as well as “undue stress and
STANDARD OF REVIEW
motion to dismiss an action under Rule 12(b)(1) raises the
question of the federal court's subject matter
jurisdiction over the action.” 5A Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §
1350, at 194 (2d ed. 1990). The Plaintiff bears the burden to
prove jurisdiction. See generally RMI Titanium Co. v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134-35 (6th
Cir. 1996); see also Rogers v. Stratton Indus., 798
F.2d 913, 915 (6th Cir. 1986). “When considering a
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
this Court may look beyond jurisdictional allegations in the
complaint and the Court may consider whatever evidence the
parties submit.” Fairport Int'l. Exploration,
Inc. v. Shipwrecked Vessel Known as THE CAPTAIN
LAWRENCE, 105 F.3d 1078, 1081 (6th Cir. 1997), vacated
on other grounds, 523 U.S. 1091, 118 S.Ct. 1558, 140 L.Ed.2d
Sovereign Immunity Generally
United States Supreme Court instructed that sovereign powers
have “traditionally enjoyed” a “common-law
immunity from suit.” Santa Clara Pueblo v.
Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978). Indeed,
“[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the
Federal Government and its agencies from suit.”
F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).
Sovereign immunity is “jurisdictional in nature.”
Id. The “terms of ...