Rodriguez v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Arturo Rodriguez, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
) 	TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
vs. 	)
)
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, 	) 	Case No. 1:20-cv-048
)
Defendant. 	)
Plaintiff initiated an action against defendant in Small Claims Court, Burleigh County, North
Dakota, with the submission of a“Claim Affidavit” dated March 4, 2020. (Doc. No. 1-2). Seeking
to recover $9,800.00 plus court cost from defendant, he alleges:
30 & 60 days late mark on credit report. Payment system has not worked on account
for 2+ years causing payments to not register. Haven good this issue resolved in the
past but continues to malfunction. Autopay, online payment and phone payments do
not work on account. Cannot get a mortgage due to their 30 and 60 day late errors.
(Id.).
On March 26, 2020, defendant removed this small claims action to this Court based on
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. (Doc. No. 1). On March 16, 2020,
it filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It asserts that plaintiff has not
met the basic pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus
cannot maintain his claim against it.
On May 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a response in opposition to defendant’s motion. He requests,
among other things, leave to file an amended complaint.
Judge Traynor has referred this matter to the magistrate judge for preliminary consideration.
For the reasons that follow, I shall grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and, in the
1
Case 1:20-cv-00048-DMT-CRH Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 3

interim, hold in abeyance my recommendation regarding the disposition of defendant’s motion.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading to contain a "short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
(a)(2). To meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, something more is required than simply expressing a desire for relief and declaring an
entitlement to it. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 n.3 (2007) ("Bell
Atlantic"). The complaint must state enough to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 93 (quoting Bell Atlantic,
550 U.S. at 555); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints must
allege sufficient facts to state a claim).
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the dismissal of a claim if
there has been a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In order to survive a
motion to dismiss under Fed. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must show that success on the merits is more than a “sheer possibility.”
Id. 	A complaint is sufficient if its “factual content . . . allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The court must accept all
factual allegations as true, except for legal conclusions or “formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action.” Id. at 681. Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. 	Detailed factual allegations are not necessary under the Rule 8
pleading standard, rather a plaintiff must set forth grounds of its entitlement to relief which “requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
2
Case 1:20-cv-00048-DMT-CRH Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 3

not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint does not “suffice if
it tenders a naked assertion devoid of further factual enhancement.” 	Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678
(2009).
Plaintiffs’ “Claim Affidavit” fails to give defendant fair notice of what plaintiff’s claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests. However, I recognize that plaintiff is proceeding pro se. I also
appreciates that the rules governing small-claims pleadings are different than the rules in federal
court. Consequently, I will afford plaintiff the chance to amend his pleadings and in so doing “flesh
out” his claim before addressing defendant’s motion. See e.g., Milakovich v. L.J. Ross Assocs.,
Inc., No. 19-CV-1353-PP, 2020 WL 620186, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 10, 2020) (affording plaintiff
in an action removed from small claims court the opportunity to amend his pleadings).
Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall have until July 1, 2020, to file a file amended complaint that sets forth the basis for
his claim against defendant. In setting forth the basis for his claim, plaintiff should identify what
statutes he believes defendant violated, and what exactly the defendant did to violate that these
statutes. Plaintiff is also strongly encouraged to seek out legal representation in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 18th day of May, 2020.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhlater
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:20-cv-00048-DMT-CRH Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3