Rutherford v. Equifax et al, No. 2:2010cv01988 - Document 28 (E.D. La. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the two motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services 11 and 13 are granted without prejudice to Pl aintiff's right to submit an amended complaint no later than twenty (20) days from the date that this Order and Reasons. Plaintiff's request for oral argument 18 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default 19 is DENIED and Plaintiff's "Motion for Merit Hearing" 20 is DENIED as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/27/2010. (cab) Modified on 10/27/2010 to edit document type (cab).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rutherford v. Equifax et al Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STEVEN L. RUTHERFORD CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 10-1988 EQUIFAX, ET AL. SECTION “N” (2) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services (Rec. Doc. 11 and 13). These motions presently are set for hearing by the Court on November 3, 2010. Plaintiff, however, has asked that the November 3, 2010 hearing be continued because a hearing has been scheduled for the same day in another matter. See Rec. Doc. 17. Plaintiff also has requested oral argument. See Rec. Doc. 18. Having considered the aforementioned motions and Plaintiff’s complaint (Rec. Doc. 4), the Court has determined that, for essentially the reasons stated by Defendants, their motions to dismiss should be granted. Quite simply, even construing the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint as true, and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, they are not sufficient to provide Defendants with sufficient notice of the claims asserted against them. Further, although the complaint references “attached evidence,” nothing is attached. As discussed in Bishop v. Shell Oil Co., No. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 07-2832, 2008 WL 2079944, *1-2 (E.D. La. 5/16/08) (Engelhardt, J), Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint provide the defendant with “fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 511, 122 S. Ct. 992, 998 (2002) (internal citations omitted); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416, 122 S. Ct. 2179, 2187 (2002) (the elements of the plaintiff's claim(s) “must be addressed by allegations in the complaint sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant”). Nor would delaying consideration of Defendants’ motions to allow Plaintiff additional time to submit written opposition memoranda, or to appear in open Court, remedy the deficiencies of Plaintiff’s complaint. To do so would only delay the requirement that Plaintiff submit an amended complaint against Defendants if he desires to proceed further with this lawsuit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that: 1) The two motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Defendants Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services (Rec. Doc. Nos. 11 and 13) are GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff’s right to submit an amended complaint no later than twenty (20) days from the date that this Order and Reasons is entered into the record. In preparing the amended complaint, Plaintiff should carefully consider and address the factual deficiencies outlined in the memoranda supporting Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Further, if documents should accompany the amended complaint, Plaintiff is take necessary steps to ensure that such document actually are included. (2) Plaintiff’s request for oral argument (Rec. Doc. 18) is DENIED. (3) Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (Rec. Doc. 19) is DENIED. (4) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Merit Hearing” is DENIED. In addition to the foregoing 2 reasons, the motion is unintelligible. All requests for relief submitted to this Court must be sufficiently clear and detailed for the Court to understand and identify what is being requested. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of October 2010. ___________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
