Estrada v. Midland Credit Management Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 12, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01704
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Leticia Estrada, No. CV-21-01704-PHX-SMB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Equifax Information Services LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants Trans Union LLC and Experian Information 16 Solutions, Inc.’s Joint Motion for a More Definite Statement (the “Motion”). (Doc. 35.) 17 Plaintiff, Leticia Estrada, filed a Response, (Doc. 41), and Defendants replied, (Doc. 46). 18 The Court has considered the pleadings and will deny Defendants’ Motion. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) brings claims against the three major 21 credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) and their respective CEOs alleging that Defendants 22 violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.1 (See Doc. 25 23 at 21–23 ¶¶ 7–12.) 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 A party may move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), which requires 26 the filing of an amended pleading where the initial pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that 27

28 1 Plaintiff also sued the creditor and its CEO, but the Plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss those Defendants on February 27, 2022. (Doc. 54.) || the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” The rule “is designed to strike at || unintelligibility, rather than want of detail.” Banks v. Lombardo, No. 2:20-cv-00556-APG- NJK, 2021 WL 3549890, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 11, 2021) (quoting Woods v. Reno Commodities, Inc., 600 F. Supp. 574, 580 (D. Nev. 1984)). “Motions for a more definite 5 || statement are disfavored and rarely granted.” Id. (citing Herd v. Cnty. of San Bernadino, 6|| 311 F. Supp. 3d 117, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 2018)). Pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed in the Ninth Circuit. Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019). 8 Defendants Motion for a More Definite Statement must be denied. First, □□□□□□□□□□□ pro se filing must be liberally construed. While Plaintiff's FAC may not be well organized || or detailed, the Court can generally tell who she is suing, why, and under which law. 11 || Second, the FAC is certainly not unintelligible. While it may lack detail, a motion for a || more definite statement is not meant to strike at a lack of detail. See Lombardo, 2021 WL 13 || 3549890, at *1. Thus, the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion. 14] IT. CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement. || (Doc. 35.) 18 Dated this 12th day of July, 2022. 19 _ 20 — fe 21 > fonorable Susan M, Brovich 02 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-