Childs v. Management Registry, Inc. d/b/a Malone Staffing Solutions

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT [# 9]. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENEKO CHILDS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-13735

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

MANAGEMENT REGISTRY, INC. D/B/A
MALONE STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
Defendant.
______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND COMPLAINT [# 9]
I. INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Dkts. No. 9, 11. Defendant moves to
dismiss the complaint because Plaintiff named the wrong defendant. Plaintiff
moves for leave to amend his complaint in order to name the correct defendant. For
the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and dismiss
Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.

-1-

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant, Management Registry, Inc., is a recruitment agency. Dkt. No. 1,
pg. 2 (Pg. ID 2). Defendant hired Plaintiff, Deneko Childs, in March 2017, and
placed him with Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I, LLC (“Yanfeng”). Id.
After ninety days with Yanfeng, Defendant informed Plaintiff that Yanfeng
intended to hire Plaintiff full-time. Id. Yanfeng then conducted its own hiring
process with Plaintiff. This process included a background check and obtaining a
consumer report on Plaintiff. On June 28, 2017, Yanfeng decided not to hire
Plaintiff. Id. at pg. 3 (Pg. ID 3).
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on November 16, 2017. Dkt.
No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Plaintiff asserted that Defendant conducted a
background check and obtained a credit report on him. Id. at pg. 2 (Pg. ID 2).
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the
consumer report in violation of the FCRA. Id. at pg. 3 (Pg. ID 3). Defendant also
allegedly failed to provide Plaintiff a written description of his rights under the
FCRA. Id. On January 23, 2018, Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dkt. No. 9. Defendant
asserted that Yanfeng is the proper Defendant in this action. See id. at pg. 2 (Pg. ID
22). On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Leave to Amend
-2-

Complaint. Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiff requests this Court dismiss the present action
against Defendant and grant him leave to add Yanfeng as a Defendant. Id. pg. 1–2
(Pg. ID 31–32).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss. The court must
construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, accept the allegations of the
complaint as true, and determine whether plaintiff's factual allegations present
plausible claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must “allege enough facts to make it plausible that the defendant bears
legal liability.” Agema v. City of Allegan, 826 F.3d 326, 331 (6th Cir. 2016). The
facts need to make it more than “merely possible that the defendant is liable; they
must make it plausible.” Id. “Bare assertions of legal liability absent some
corresponding facts are insufficient to state a claim.” Id. A claim will be dismissed
“if the facts as alleged are insufficient to make a valid claim or if the claim shows
on its face that relief is barred by an affirmative defense.” Riverview Health Inst.,
LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505, 512 (6th Cir. 2010).
IV. DISCUSSION
The FCRA holds that an employer must provide a consumer a copy of his
consumer report before taking adverse action on the consumer based on the report.
15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i). The FCRA also states that an employer must
-3-

provide the consumer with a written description of the rights of the consumer
under the Act. Id. at § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii).
In this case, Defendant was not the entity that conducted a background check
on Plaintiff or obtained a consumer report on Plaintiff. Yanfeng was Defendant’s
employer; therefore, Yanfeng was the entity that obtained Plaintiff’s consumer
report. Plaintiff concedes that Defendant is the wrong Defendant in its Motion for
Leave to Amend Complaint. Dkt. No. 11, pg. 1 (Pg. ID 31). Therefore, this Court
will grant Defendant’s Motion to dismiss without prejudice so Plaintiff can re-file
his complaint against Yanfeng. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
is denied.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Amend Complaint and grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 30, 2018

/s/Gershwin A. Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge

-4-