United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. Petronykoriak, Plaintiff,
Equifax Information Services LLC et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COMCAST OF
DETROIT LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
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. 1-1, PageID.1.) Defendant Comcast of Detroit LLC
(“Comcast”), moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12. (ECF No. 84, PageID.542.)
Plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's Rule 12
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
Comcast. 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, PageID.16-17.) Plaintiff argues that these
actions violated various federal statutes, including the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Credit
Billing Act (“FCBA”), and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Plaintiff
brings additional counts against defendant under various
state tort law theories, including negligence, defamation,
“malicious use of a telephone, ” and
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on August 9, 2019. Plaintiff
did not respond.
motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed under the
same standard as one brought under Rule 12(b)(6).
E.E.O.C. v. J.H. Routh Packing Co., 246 F.3d 850,
851 (6th Cir. 2001). That is, courts must “construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff”
and “accept all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true.” Id. “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
Comcast. As a result, the Court has no way of knowing what
relationship this defendant has to this case. Moreover, the
Court is unable to assess whether the conduct of Comcast 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 Comcast.
complaint includes similarly conclusory allegations with
respect to “ALL LISTED DEFENDANTS, ” and, for
reasons outlined below, these general allegations also fail
to set forth a plausible claim.
Sixth Circuit, consumers may bring a cause of action under
the FCRA against any “‘person who is negligent in
failing to comply with any requirement . . . imposed with
respect to any consumer under the act.” Boggio v.
USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012)
(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681o). Relevant to Comcast, the
FRCA requires a “furnisher to ‘conduct an
investigation with respect to the disputed
information'” provided to it by a consumer
reporting agency (“CRA”). Id. at 616
(quoting § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)). The FRCA lays out
additional steps and requirements of a furnisher with respect
to the information provided about a consumer by a CRA.
Id. at 616-17. However, these requirements are not
triggered unless the furnisher receives “notice from a