Opinion
2:22-cv-00430-JAD-BN\M
04-01-2022
BRIAN CHAMBERLAIN, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC, Defendant.
ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant. ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant.
ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant.
DEFENDANT NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC'S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Defendant National Credit Adjusters, LLC ("NCA") and files its Motion for More Definite Statement as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Brian Chamberlain ("Plaintiff) filed his state court Complaint on February 8, 2022, in the Justice Court, Las Vegas Township, Clark County, Nevada located at 200 Lewis Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89101. NCA removed the case to this Court on March 8, 2022, on the basis off federal question jurisdiction. See Exhibit A.
2. This is a civil action based on Plaintiffs contention that NCA increased the payment amount for a settlement arrangement that he agreed to in relation to the debt at issue. See Exhibit B. Plaintiff further alleges that NCA reported an inaccurate tradeline on Plaintiffs credit report. Id. Actions such as these are usually based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (the "FDCPA"), which regulates debt collection activity, and/or the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the "FCRA"), which governs credit reporting activities Based on Plaintiffs alleged facts, Plaintiffs claims could plausibly fail under either or both statutory schemes. Id.
3. However, Plaintiffs Complaint does not put NCA on notice of what alleged violations NCA committed. Id. The Complaint does not specify what statutory provisions were violated, how NCA's alleged conduct violated any statutory provisions, or how Plaintiff has a right to relief based on his factual allegations. Id. In the case at bar, Plaintiffs Complaint is so vague and threadbard as to deny NCA an opportunity to fully defend itself in this matter. To this end, NCA requests that this Court grant its Motion for a More Definite Statement and require Plaintiff to file a Complaint which adequately places NCA on notice as to the nature of and underlying facts supporting Plaintiffs claims against NCA.
II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Standard of Law
4. Federal Rule Civil of Procedure 12(e) allows a party to request a more definitive pleading when the current pleading is "so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Accordingly, while Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain only a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, a party may file a motion for a more definite statement "'where the complaint is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to himself.'" Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bank of N.Y.Mellon v. Azure Estates Owners Ass 'n, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237262, at *4 (D. Nev. July 23, 2019) (quoting Blizzard Entm't, Inc. v. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co., 149 F.Supp.3d 1171 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999); see also Tomassi v. Amcol Sys., Civil Action No. 14-CV-l 1077, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93685, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 10, 2014) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e)); Soumano v. Equifax Credit Info Ser., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-313, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96919, 2016 WL 4007094, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 25, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:16-CV-313, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112994, 2016 WL 4449637 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2016) (motions for a more definite statement should be granted when the plaintiffs pleading is "so vague or unintelligible that it is virtually impossible for the defendant to craft its responsive pleading."). Further, Rule 12(e) motions are also appropriate when a plaintiff has crafted a "shotgun pleading" making it difficult or "impossible to know which factual allegations in a pleading are intended to support which claims for legal relief." Bostic v. Davis, No. 15-CV-3029, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28926, 2017 WL 784814, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2017).
B. The Vague And Ambiguous Nature Of Plaintiffs Complaint Renders It Virtually Impossible For Defendant To Create A Responsive Pleading.
5. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges in its entirety the following: "I made a settlement with Charlotte Richardson and National Credit Adjusters for $280 and later found out via a phone call that the settlement arrangment [sic] was for $285. On my credit report they put the 280 as a payment." See Exhibit B. This is the extent of the information provided to NCA regarding the claims alleged against it by Plaintiff.
6. While NCA believes that Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a claim under the FDCPA and/or the FCRA, based on the reference to his credit report, past litigation involving similar claims regarding credit reporting and the industry in which NCA operates, NCA is left entirely unsure what Plaintiff is alleging that NCA did wrong. Moreover, Plaintiffs Complaint does not allege any claims upon which relief can be granted.
7. For example, Plaintiff claims to have "made a settlement with... National Credit Adjusters for $280" but does not specify what exactly was settled. See Exhibit B. Because proving the existence of a "debt" arising from consumer debt is a "threshold" issue in every FDCPA action Plaintiff is required to identify the specific nature of the underlying financial obligation at issue. Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Further] Plaintiff also claims that NCA reported a $280 payment on his credit report, but does not identify what statutes or provisions NCA allegedly violated nor how NCA's credit reporting allegedly violated any of those statutes or provisions. Id.
8. While NCA recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and perhaps did not expect himself to be hauled into federal court on this matter, NCA is still entitled to know the factual allegations raised in order to effectively defend itself in this matter. NCA cannot do so without first being informed of what statutes or provisions it allegedly violated, and how it allegedly violated these statutes or provisions. Consequently, this Court should require Plaintiff to file a Complaint which adequately places NCA on notice as to the identity, nature, and underlying facts supporting his claims against NCA.
III. CONCLUSION
9. For these reasons detailed above, this Court should grant NCA's Motion for a More Definite Statement and require Plaintiff to file a complaint that properly places NCA on notice of the claims alleged against it and that factual basis of those claims. This is necessary so that NCA may properly evaluate Plaintiffs claims and fully defend itself in this matter.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant National Credit Adjusters, LLC J respectfully requests that this Court grant NCA's Motion for More Definite Statement and require Plaintiff to file a Complaint which resolves the vague and ambiguous nature of Plaintiff's Complaint, and should Plaintiff fail to do so, then dismiss this case with prejudice.
ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS KURT R. BONDS, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 6 is GRANTED as unopposed. See LR 7-2(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint in this case that provides sufficient facts to put defendant on notice of what it has done to Plaintiff to violate his rights.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs amended complaint is due by April 29, 2022. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to add Plaintiffs address to the docket, as found at ECF No. 6 at 15.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 15th, 2022, 1 electronically filed the foregoing with the ClerM of Court for the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada by using the Court's CM/ECF system] Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system] Those Participants who are not were sent via U.S. Postal Mail.
AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICE STEPHENSON-JOHNSON. ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTORS MEET AND CONFER CERTIFCATION
PATRICE STEPHENSON-JOHNSON, ESQ. being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. This Affidavit is being made in connection with Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement Judgment pursuant to LR 16-1 (d), and LRIA 1 -3(f)(2).
2. I am an attorney at Alverson Taylor & Sanders which is counsel of record for the I Defendant in the above matter with personal knowledge of the things testified to in this affidavit.
3. Plaintiff was contacted on March 16, 2022 telephonically in an attempt to meet and confer regarding the Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement.
4. Plaintiff ended the call abruptly while an attempt was made to seek an amended complaint and to seek resolution.
5. The Parties were not able to reach a resolution of any issues discussed during the call.
6. Plaintiff stated that he does not need to have a more definite statement "because the court does not require it."
7. FURTHER YOUR AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
EXHIBIT A (Omitted)