Israel v. PRA Portfolio Receivable Management, LLC et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 7 Motion for More Definite Statement; granting 13 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying 15 Motion for Default Judgment ( Plaintiffs Amended Complaint due by 4/10/2025, Defendants Answer due by 5/16/2025). Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (SHic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOLOMON ISRAEL,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:24-cv-13167
District Judge Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

v.
PRA PORTFOLIO RECEIVABLE
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
BRITTANY SMITH,
DEVIN URBANOWSKI, and
SIGNATURE RECOVERY SERVICES,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER ADDRESING SEVERAL MOTIONS (ECF Nos. 7, 13 & 15) and
SETTING DEADLINES
On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff initiated this consumer credit lawsuit on his
own behalf in state court against PRA Portfolio Receivable Management (PRA
RM), two of its employees (Brittany Smith & Devin Urbanowski), and Signature
Recovery Services. (ECF No. 1, PageID.12; see also id., PageID.13-29 (Ex. Nos.
1-16).) The PRA RM Defendants removed the case to this Court on November 27,
2024. (ECF No. 1.)
Judge Kumar has referred this case to me for full pretrial matters. (ECF No.
8.) Currently before the Court are three motions:
•

The PRA RM Defendants’ December 4, 2024 motion for a
more definite statement (ECF No. 7), as to which a response
1

was originally due on January 10, 2025 (ECF No. 9), and
Signature Recovery Services filed a notice of joinder &
concurrence (ECF No. 12);
•

Plaintiff’s January 7, 2025 motion for extension of time to file a
response (ECF No. 13), although Plaintiff subsequently filed a
composite document titled “more definite statement” (ECF No.
14); and,

•

Plaintiff’s February 19, 2025 motion requesting default
judgment (ECF No. 15).

On March 10, 2025, the Court conducted a video scheduling/status conference
(ECF Nos. 16, 17), at which Plaintiff and defense counsel (Attorneys Avanti D.
Bakane and James J. Hunter) appeared.
Upon consideration of the motion papers, the discussion during the video
conference, and for all the reasons stated on the record by the Court, which are
hereby incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein: (1) the PRA RM
Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; (2)
Plaintiff’s motion for extension (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff’s
February 18, 2025 (ECF No. 14) is accepted as a response; and, (4) Plaintiff’s
motion requesting default judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED, because a party
must seek an entry of default (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)) before seeking entry of
default judgment (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), and entry of default is inappropriate

2

where, as here, there was a pending motion for more definite statement (see Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(e)). 1
Additionally, no later than April 10, 2025, Plaintiff SHALL file an
amended complaint – one that makes clear not only which individuals and/or
entities are being sued, but also which statutes the specified Defendants are alleged
to have violated (e.g., if the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which is
codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, then which section). In drafting his amended
complaint, Plaintiff’s attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“Claim for
Relief.”) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 (“Form of Pleadings”). Plaintiff might also
consider making use of this district’s form Complaint for a Civil Case or form
Amended Complaint for a Civil Case, each of which is available via the Court’s
website (www.mied.uscourts.gov). Moreover, “[a]ny amendment to a pleading,
whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to amend, must, except by
leave of court, reproduce the entire pleading as amended, and may not incorporate
any prior pleading by reference.” E.D. Mich. LR 15.1.
No later than May 16, 2025, Defendants SHALL each file either an answer
or a motion to dismiss. Any Defendant that files an answer must also convene a
See Farrell v. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 14-cv-11781, 2014 WL 12658841 (E.D.
Mich. Aug. 8, 2014) (Murphy, J.) (affirming magistrate judge’s denial of motion
for default judgment on general pretrial referral where “entry of default judgment
was procedurally inappropriate because the clerk denied Farrell’s request for entry
of default.”)
1

3

conference with Plaintiff to put together a discovery plan and submit it to the
Court. See Fed. Rules Civ. P. 16, 26(f). Meanwhile, discovery is STAYED.
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all
proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate
Judge form (AO 85) is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov.
The parties must adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the E.D.
Mich. Local Rules, and the Undersigned’s practice guidelines – all of which are
accessible via the Court’s website (www.mied.uscourts.gov).
Finally, Plaintiff is encouraged to seek the assistance of an attorney or of the
U of D Mercy Law School Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic, which may be
contacted by phone [phone]) or email ([e-mail]).
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2

Dated: March 12, 2025

_________________
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
2

4