1 Oct 20, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 KEISHA STEPHENS, NO. 2:25-CV-0307-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR A 10 NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT CITIBANK, N.A., and CAPITAL 11 ONE CREDIT CARD BANK,
12 Defendants. 13
14 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s, Citibank, N.A., Motion to Dismiss 15 or Alternatively Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 3). This matter 16 was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed 17 the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, 18 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion for a More Definite 19 Statement (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED IN PART. 20 1 BACKGROUND 2 On June 17, 2025, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint with the
3 Spokane County Superior Court. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-9. The complaint alleges 4 violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. 5 and Washington State Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”), RCW 19.86.010-
6 86.920. ECF No 1-2 at 6-9. Plaintiff requests actual damages, treble damages, and 7 economic damages including past income. ECF No. 1-2 at 9. 8 On August 13, 2025, Defendant, Citibank, NA, removed the case to this 9 Court. ECF No 1. Subsequently, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or
10 Alternatively Motion for a More Definite Statement on August 20, 2025. 11 Defendant requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. ECF No. 3. 12 Plaintiff did not respond to this motion.
13 DISCUSSION 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b) provides a list of defenses that 15 must be either stated in a responsive pleading or by motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b). 16 The Ninth Circuit allows any Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b) motion to be filed
17 before a responsive pleading. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Servs., Inc., 855 18 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1988). Failure to state a claim, insufficient service and 19 process are a few of the defenses under Rule 12(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(4)-(6).
20 // 1 I. Failure to State a Claim 2 For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a
3 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim 4 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 5 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This requires
6 more than a simple “formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements.” 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed to “‘afford the 8 petitioner the benefit of any doubt.’” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th 9 Cir. 2012) (quoting Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). “Under
10 Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a 11 complaint can possibly be saved.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 12 2000). Moreover, the claim must have merit. Id.
13 The FCRA was created to protect consumer privacy, ensure fairness, and to 14 conduct correct credit reporting. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 15 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. Under section 1681e, there 16 are numerous duties and compliance procedures required of consumer reporting
17 agencies. § 1681e. Additionally, part of this act created a private right of action. 18 Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154. “However, § 1681s–2 limits this private right of action 19 to claims arising under subsection (b), the duties triggered upon notice of a dispute
20 from a CRA.” § 1681s–2(c); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009). Among other things, Plaintiff must allege elements 2 including Defendants were considered a furnisher, that they failed to adhere to
3 procedures under the FRCA, and a notice of dispute was properly provided. 4 Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154-55. 5 Next, “‘To prevail in a private [W]CPA claim, the plaintiff must prove (1)
6 an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) 7 affecting the public interest, (4) injury to a person's business or property, and (5) 8 causation.’” In re Amazon Prime Video Litig., 765 F. Supp. 3d 1165, 1175 (W.D. 9 Wash. 2025) (quoting Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn. 2d 27, 37, 204
10 P.3d 885 (2009)). 11 Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not argue specific facts to allege claims 12 upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 3 at 5-6. Defendant contends that the
13 specific factual allegations in the Complaint fail to establish any violation of law, 14 let alone support the claims asserted by Plaintiff. ECF No. 3 at 6. 15 Plaintiff alleges Defendant, Navy Federal Credit Union, violated the 16 Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they failed to
17 protect Plaintiff’s account when they did not “email, call or provide a letter of 18 intent or explanation prior to withdrawing funds.” ECF No. 1-2 at 6. Plaintiff also 19 alleges all Defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Credit
20 Reporting Act for the same reason. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that they 1 participated “in unfair practice by failing to identify names on checks presented to 2 the account of Plaintiff.” ECF No. 1-2 at 7.
3 Plaintiff seems to allege a banking issue for transfers and other banking 4 procedures but not any elements under either the FCRA or the CPA. ECF No. 1-2 5 at 4-9. For the FCRA claim, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that she filed a
6 notice of dispute or any facts regarding her credit report or failure of a credit 7 reporting company’s’ compliance with required procedures. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. 8 There are no specific details about what Defendants did that amounted to a failure 9 of this act or surrounding the event in question. Id. For these reasons, Plaintiff
10 failed to state a claim under the FRCA against all Defendants. 11 Next, under the WCPA, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts for any of the 12 required elements. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. Plaintiff does not state what and why a
13 practice was deceptive, how it occurred in trade or commerce or how this caused 14 any injury to her property or business. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. Plaintiff toes around 15 issues with banking transactions, but this does not amount to any allegation of 16 damages. These claims are without merit and is not factually plausible.
17 Furthermore, Plaintiff does not allege any complaints or facts for how these 18 practices affect the public interest. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. 19 II. Insufficient Service
20 Rule 4(h) provides the requirements to serve proper service on a corporation. 1 FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h). Service is proper if served in the same manner as an 2 individual under Rule 4(e)(1) or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Oct 20, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6
7 KEISHA STEPHENS, NO. 2:25-CV-0307-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR A 10 NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT CITIBANK, N.A., and CAPITAL 11 ONE CREDIT CARD BANK,
12 Defendants. 13
14 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s, Citibank, N.A., Motion to Dismiss 15 or Alternatively Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 3). This matter 16 was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed 17 the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, 18 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion for a More Definite 19 Statement (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED IN PART. 20 1 BACKGROUND 2 On June 17, 2025, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint with the
3 Spokane County Superior Court. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-9. The complaint alleges 4 violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. 5 and Washington State Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”), RCW 19.86.010-
6 86.920. ECF No 1-2 at 6-9. Plaintiff requests actual damages, treble damages, and 7 economic damages including past income. ECF No. 1-2 at 9. 8 On August 13, 2025, Defendant, Citibank, NA, removed the case to this 9 Court. ECF No 1. Subsequently, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or
10 Alternatively Motion for a More Definite Statement on August 20, 2025. 11 Defendant requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. ECF No. 3. 12 Plaintiff did not respond to this motion.
13 DISCUSSION 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b) provides a list of defenses that 15 must be either stated in a responsive pleading or by motion. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b). 16 The Ninth Circuit allows any Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b) motion to be filed
17 before a responsive pleading. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Servs., Inc., 855 18 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1988). Failure to state a claim, insufficient service and 19 process are a few of the defenses under Rule 12(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(4)-(6).
20 // 1 I. Failure to State a Claim 2 For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a
3 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, ‘to state a claim 4 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 5 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This requires
6 more than a simple “formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements.” 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed to “‘afford the 8 petitioner the benefit of any doubt.’” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th 9 Cir. 2012) (quoting Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)). “Under
10 Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a 11 complaint can possibly be saved.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 12 2000). Moreover, the claim must have merit. Id.
13 The FCRA was created to protect consumer privacy, ensure fairness, and to 14 conduct correct credit reporting. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 15 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x. Under section 1681e, there 16 are numerous duties and compliance procedures required of consumer reporting
17 agencies. § 1681e. Additionally, part of this act created a private right of action. 18 Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154. “However, § 1681s–2 limits this private right of action 19 to claims arising under subsection (b), the duties triggered upon notice of a dispute
20 from a CRA.” § 1681s–2(c); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009). Among other things, Plaintiff must allege elements 2 including Defendants were considered a furnisher, that they failed to adhere to
3 procedures under the FRCA, and a notice of dispute was properly provided. 4 Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154-55. 5 Next, “‘To prevail in a private [W]CPA claim, the plaintiff must prove (1)
6 an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) 7 affecting the public interest, (4) injury to a person's business or property, and (5) 8 causation.’” In re Amazon Prime Video Litig., 765 F. Supp. 3d 1165, 1175 (W.D. 9 Wash. 2025) (quoting Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn. 2d 27, 37, 204
10 P.3d 885 (2009)). 11 Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not argue specific facts to allege claims 12 upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 3 at 5-6. Defendant contends that the
13 specific factual allegations in the Complaint fail to establish any violation of law, 14 let alone support the claims asserted by Plaintiff. ECF No. 3 at 6. 15 Plaintiff alleges Defendant, Navy Federal Credit Union, violated the 16 Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they failed to
17 protect Plaintiff’s account when they did not “email, call or provide a letter of 18 intent or explanation prior to withdrawing funds.” ECF No. 1-2 at 6. Plaintiff also 19 alleges all Defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Credit
20 Reporting Act for the same reason. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that they 1 participated “in unfair practice by failing to identify names on checks presented to 2 the account of Plaintiff.” ECF No. 1-2 at 7.
3 Plaintiff seems to allege a banking issue for transfers and other banking 4 procedures but not any elements under either the FCRA or the CPA. ECF No. 1-2 5 at 4-9. For the FCRA claim, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that she filed a
6 notice of dispute or any facts regarding her credit report or failure of a credit 7 reporting company’s’ compliance with required procedures. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. 8 There are no specific details about what Defendants did that amounted to a failure 9 of this act or surrounding the event in question. Id. For these reasons, Plaintiff
10 failed to state a claim under the FRCA against all Defendants. 11 Next, under the WCPA, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts for any of the 12 required elements. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. Plaintiff does not state what and why a
13 practice was deceptive, how it occurred in trade or commerce or how this caused 14 any injury to her property or business. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. Plaintiff toes around 15 issues with banking transactions, but this does not amount to any allegation of 16 damages. These claims are without merit and is not factually plausible.
17 Furthermore, Plaintiff does not allege any complaints or facts for how these 18 practices affect the public interest. ECF No. 1-2 at 4-7. 19 II. Insufficient Service
20 Rule 4(h) provides the requirements to serve proper service on a corporation. 1 FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h). Service is proper if served in the same manner as an 2 individual under Rule 4(e)(1) or
3 (B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by 4 appointment or by law to receive service of process and--if the agent is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires--by also mailing a 5 copy of each to the defendant
6 FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h)(1)(B). Under Rule 4(e)(1), service is proper for a corporation 7 or an individual by “following state law for serving a summons in an action 8 brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is 9 located or where service is made.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e)(1). 10 Under New York law, where the service was attempted, a few methods are 11 possible. N.Y. CPLR 311 (McKinney 2003). First, personal service may be 12 proper upon a domestic corporation, when delivering the summons “to an officer, 13 director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other 14 agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service.” CPLR 311(a)(1). 15 Additionally, the statute allows service under 306 and 307 of the Business 16 Corporation Code. Id. These rules allow for “[s]ervice of process on a registered
17 agent may be made in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons, as 18 if the registered agent was a defendant” or to the Secretary of State. N.Y. Bus. 19 Corp. Law § 306(a)-(b)(1) (McKinney). Additional methods of service continue
20 within the statute. Id. 1 Under Washington law, where this Court is located, multiple avenues are 2 possible to properly serve process if one of the previous methods are not possible
3 with reasonable diligence. RCW 23.95.450. Under Washington Law, process 4 must be served, as required or permitted by law, which means upon a represented 5 entity’s registered agent. RCW 4.28.080(8); 23.95.450. However, if the entity
6 does not have a current registered agent or cannot be served with reasonable 7 diligence, “the entity may be served by registered or certified mail, return receipt 8 requested, or by similar commercial delivery service, addressed to the entity at the 9 entity's principal office.” RCW 23.95.450(2). Next, if this method is not possible
10 to effect service, then service may be processed “by handing a copy to the 11 individual in charge of any regular place of business or activity of the entity if the 12 individual served is not a plaintiff in the action.” RCW 32.95.450(3). The last
13 three methods allow process to be served to the Secretary of State, in a tangible 14 medium, or other means as allowed by Washington law. RCW 23.95.450(4)-(6). 15 When there has been insufficient service, “the district court has discretion to 16 dismiss an action or to quash service.” S.J. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 470
17 F.3d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir. 2006). Under Rule 4(m), “a defendant is not served 18 within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after 19 notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that
20 defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4 1 When there has been insufficient service, “the district court has discretion to 2 dismiss an action or to quash service.” S.J. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 470
3 F.3d 1288, 1293 (9th Cir. 2006). Importantly, the Court must not dismiss a claim 4 sua sponte without providing the plaintiff with a chance to prove good cause for 5 the failure of proper service. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975 (9th Cir.
6 2013). Absent good cause, the Court may extend the deadline to direct service if 7 the plaintiff shows excusable neglect. Id. at 976. 8 Defendant states Plaintiff insufficiently served process. ECF No. 3 at 6-7. 9 Plaintiff filed a complaint but did not file certificate of service. ECF No. 1-2 at 2-
10 10. Additionally, Plaintiff served Defendant, Citibank, by mail which does not 11 meet the approved method of service. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. Service was not sent to 12 the registered agent. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. Defendant requests the Court to dismiss
13 the claims for insufficient service under Rule 12(b). ECF No. 3 at 6-7. 14 Plaintiff sent the summons by mail to Citibank but did not send anything to 15 Capital One Credit Card Bank or Navy Federal Credit Union. ECF No. 1-2 at 10. 16 Plaintiff’s 90-day requirement to serve and file proper service ended on September
17 15, 2025. ECF No. 1-2. That is over 30 days ago. The Court recognizes Plaintiff 18 is proceeding pro se but even pro se parties must adhere to procedural 19 requirements. U.S. v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (1989) (stating pro se litigants
20 must adhere to the rules and do not receive special rules). Plaintiff had notice and 1 an opportunity to argue good cause or excusable neglect for failure to properly 2 serve process in response to this motion. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 975
3 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2002) 4 (stating a district court must not dismiss sua sponte without notifying the plaintiff 5 of the effort or intent to dismiss the action). However, Plaintiff neither filed a
6 response nor sought an extension of time or similar relief. Efaw v. Williams, 473 7 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (showing that when a plaintiff filed a motion of 8 extension of time, this was his opportunity to argue good cause or excusable 9 neglect). As a result, the Court does not find good cause or excusable neglect.
10 Additionally, under LCivR 7(e), failure to comply with the rules for motions 11 and responses, “may be deemed consent to the entry of an order adverse to the 12 party who violates these rules.” LCivR 7(e). Plaintiff failed to comply with the
13 rules and has not opposed this motion in any way or filed anything beyond the 14 original complaint. 15 The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant, Citibank, N.A., for 16 failure to properly serve process and to state a claim. Additionally, Plaintiff failed
17 to attempt to properly serve process to the other Defendants, Navy Federal Credit 18 Union and Capital One Credit Card Bank within the ninety-day requirement. Even 19 more, Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against all
20 Defendants and failed to respond to this motion. For these reasons, all claims are 1 || dismissed. 2|| ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion for a More 4 Definite Statement (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED in part. 5 2. Plaintiffs claims for violations under the FCRA and WCPA against all 6 Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 7 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, furnish copies to 8 || counsel and CLOSE the file. 9 DATED October 20, 2025.
<> United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR