Rosciano v. Experian et al
ORDER that Defendant Midland's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 47 ) is granted. The Clerk shall terminate this case as against Defendant Midland. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 4/1/15. (NKS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Experian, et al.,
Before the court is Defendant Midland’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 47). Plaintiff has not filed a response.
The court previously granted Midland’s original motion to dismiss, finding that
Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as against Midland.
granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 43),
filed February 17, 2015, fails to correct the defects in Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc.
1). As they did in the original Complaint, Plaintiff’s first two causes of action still either
rely on facts that Plaintiff has not pled or seek damages under statutory provisions
inapplicable to a debt-collector defendant such as Midland. Alleging that the three
defendants Plaintiff has named were acting “in concert” (Doc. 43 at 4) does not cure this
deficiency, as the court has previously explained. (Doc. 39 at 4.) And even assuming T-
Mobile violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting on his credit negatively,
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, however, the court
Plaintiff has cited no authority for the view that Midland assumed responsibility for that
conduct through its subsequent purchase of Plaintiff’s debt to T-Mobile.
The First Amended Complaint adds a third cause of action alleging, in its entirety,
“By reason of foregoing, defendant has caused plaintiff’s credit to be wrongly reported
and slandered, all to his proximate cause and damages.” (Doc. 43 at 5.) It is not clear to
whom the “defendant” in the third cause of action refers. But even if it refers to Midland,
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. To prevail on a cause of action for slander, a plaintiff
must show that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement, that the statement
was published to a third party, and that the defendant was at fault, which “may consist of
knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard of truth or falsity, or negligence.” See Boswell v.
Phx. Newspapers, 152 Ariz. 1, 3 & n.1, 730 P.2d 178, 180 & n.1 (Ct. App. 1985)
(citations omitted). Here, the First Amended Complaint nowhere alleges that Midland
made any statements about Plaintiff, much less false and defamatory statements that were
published to a third party with fault. Plaintiff claims that “defendants reported [his
failure to pay] upon his credit derogatively” and “[d]efendants . . . reported the event
derogatorily notwithstanding the letter and facts of the matter.” (Doc. 43 at 3 (ellipsis in
original).) But this kind of collective, unspecified pleading is insufficient to state a claim.
And in any event, these allegations appear in Plaintiff’s first cause of action, which
asserts violations of statutory provisions that cannot apply to Midland. Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Midland’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 47) is granted. The Clerk
shall terminate this case as against Defendant Midland.
Dated: April 1st, 2015.
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?