Allen v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss; denying 6 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Roger L. Allen
Plaintiff,
Case No: 15-13597
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
v.
Equifax Information Services, LLC and
Experian Information Solutions,

Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
I.

Introduction
Plaintiff Roger L. Allen (“Allen”) previously filed Case No. 14-12219 against

Equifax Information Services, LLC and Experian Information Solutions (“Defendants”).
That lawsuit was dismissed on February 13, 2015 for failure to comply with the Court’s
discovery Order. (Doc. # 46). On September 15, 2015, Allen filed a new complaint in
the 3rd Circuit Court for the State of Michigan, alleging identical causes of action against
the same Defendants.
On October 14, 2015, Defendants timely removed and jointly filed a Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. #3). Defendants say Allen’s complaint is barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Allen responded by filing a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #6), saying
Defendants failed to file an answer and that it is unlawful for Defendants to file a joint

1

Motion to Dismiss. Allen also filed a largely incomprehensible “Judicial Notice of
Adjudicative Facts” (Doc. #7) which the Court construes as a response to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss.
Allen’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. Defendants timely removed and
properly filed a joint motion. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
II.

Motion to Dismiss
Defendants say Allen’s current complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata

and should be dismissed.
In response, Allen says: (1) dismissal of this case is improper under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41; (2) Judge Roberts lost jurisdiction over the case when she was served a
mandatory recusal in his prior case; (3) the prior order dismissing his case is void due to
his motion to recuse; (4) he is entitled to an opportunity to be heard; (5) the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain a provision allowing two separate Defendants to
join their answer to a complaint; (6) both Defendants filed their answers after the time
allowed; and (7) Defendants’ pleadings lack the signature of an attorney. None of
Allen’s arguments has merit.
The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Res judicata applies when the
following elements are met: (1) a final decision has been made on the merits; (2) a
subsequent action arises between the same parties; (3) there is an issue in the
subsequent action which was litigated or which should have been litigated in the prior
action; and (4) there is a close similarity between the claims or causes of action. See,
Bragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 776 (6th Cir. 2009).

2

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the prior dismissal was an adjudication on the
merits. The current case is against the same defendants. The two lawsuits allege
identical causes of action; all issues should have been litigated in the prior action. Since
all four elements of the test have been met, the doctrine applies and Allen’s lawsuit is
barred.
Defendants request costs and fees because Allen unreasonably refused to
concur with Defendants’ request for dismissal. In its discretion, the Court denies this
request.
III.

Conclusion
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Allen’s lawsuit is DISMISSED.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: November 19, 2015
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Robert Allen by electronic means
or U.S. Mail on November 19, 2015.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3