Wright v. RJM Acquisitions LLC et al

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that 1. The plaintiff is given leave file a second amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. No extensions will be allowed. If a second amended complaint is not filed within the time allowed, then the case will be closed. 2. The plaintiffs requests for default are denied without prejudice. (DI's 78 , 85 , 103 .) 3. The defendant Equifax, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. (DI 94 .) Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 6/11/12. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ERRlCK M. WRlGHT,
Plaintiff,

v.
ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
et. aI,
Defendants.

)
)

)

)
) Civ. Action No. 09-612-GMS
)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, Errick M. Wright ("Wright"), who proceeds pro se, filed this lawsuit on
August 18,2009, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. §§ 1692 through 1692p. (D.L 2.) Pending before the court are several motions filed by
the parties. (DJ. 78, 85, 94, 103.)

II. BACKGROUND
The original complaint alleges that the defendants RJM Acquisitions LLC ("RJM"),
Portfolio Recovery Affiliates ("Portfolio Recovery"), Arrow Financial Services, Inc. ("Arrow
Financial"), and First Premier Bank ("First Premier") violated the FDCPA "by use of false
representation or other deceptive practices in an attempt to collect an alleged debt."] (D.L 2.)
Wright amended the complaint to add the defendants Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union"),
Equifax, Inc. ("Equifax"), Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian"), and Del-One

lRJM was terminated as a defendant on September 22,2009, Del-One was terminated as
a defendant on December 29,2010, and Portfolio Recovery was terminated as a defendant on
July 14,201 L (See D.L 6, 62, 82.)

("Del-One"), and alleges that Trans Union, Equifax, and Experian negligently reported incorrect
and damaging information in Wright's credit profile and failed to investigate the validity of the
information being reported to them by the defendants in this case. (D.I.6.)
On March 30, 2011 the court dismissed the amended complaint and gave Wright leave to
file a second amended complaint within thirty days of the order. (See D.I. 72) Wright was
warned that if a second amended complaint was not filed within the time allowed, the case would
be closed. On April 13, 2011, Wright filed a motion for leave of court to amend complaint
instead of filing an amended complaint. (D.I.74.) The filing was docketed as a motion but,
later, on July 15,2011, for reasons unknown, a docketing clerk terminated the motion so that it
did not appear pending. Subsequently, Wright filed requests for default (D.I. 78, 85, 103) for the
defendants alleged failure to plead or otherwise defend as to the second amended complaint, and
Equifax filed a motion to dismiss (D.!. 94).
Equifax, Trans Union, Experian, Arrow, and First Premier oppose the requests for default
on the grounds that Wright did not file an amended pleading that required a response from them.
In addition, Trans Union contends that it has yet to be properly served? Finally, Equifax moves
for dismissal based upon Wright's repeated failures to file a valid, legally and factually sufficient
complaint, including his failure to file an amended complaint pursuant to the March 30, 2011
order.
It is obvious from his filings that Wright believes the motion for leave to amend

complaint at docket item 74, filed on April 13, 2011, served as the second amended complaint. It

2The court docket indicates, however, that a waiver of service on behalf of Trans Union
was signed by its counsel on February 7, 2011 (0.1.64) and that Trans Union counsel also
accepted personal service on December 15,2011 (D.!. 100).
2

is equally obvious from the defendants' filings they believe that docket item 74 is a motion and
not the operative second amended complaint. Finally, it appears there was confusion by Clerk of
Court staff inasmuch as docket item 74 was first docketed as a motion, but later the motion was
terminated without a ruling by this court.
Therefore, Wright will be given leave to file a second amended complaint as set forth in
the March 30, 2011 memorandum and order. (D.L 72.) The second amended complaint shall be
in the proper form as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this
Court. Wright shall not file a motion for leave to amend, as it is unnecessary. All pending
requests for default and the motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice.

A~

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this

r:--.

,iL day of J'-"'II
'-"'""'"

,2012, that;

1. The plaintiff is given leave file a second amended complaint within twenty-one (21)
days from the date of this order. No extensions will be allowed. If a second amended complaint
is not filed within the time allowed, then the case will be closed.
2. The plaintiffs requests for default are denied without prejudice. (D.!. 78, 85, 103.)
3. The defendant Equifax, Inc.'s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. (D.L
94.)

3