1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 DERRICK MUHAMMAD, Case No. 25-cv-04952-WHO

6 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A 7 v. MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT 8 CREDENCE RESOURCE AMENDED COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT, LLC, 9 Re: Dkt. No. 4, 7, 8 Defendant.

10 Pro se plaintiff Derrick Muhammad filed the underlying complaint in the Small Claims 11 Court of the Superior Court of California, County of Pittsburg, on May 1, 2025. Dkt. No. 1-1 12 (Form Complaint for Small Claims Court). The complaint contains few factual allegations. 13 Muhammad alleges that defendant Credence Resource Management, LLC (“CRM”) is liable for 14 “[d]efamation of character, credit worthiness, credit standing [and] reputation by reporting 15 inaccurate erroneous and fraudulent information on [Muhammad’s] credit file.” Dkt. No. 101, at p. 16 2. He claims that CRM “violat[ed] [his] rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair 17 Debt Collections Act.” Id. But the only other detail he provides is that he allegedly “suffered 18 higher interest and fees due to lower credit score[.]” Id. at p. 3. 19 On June 11, 2025, CRM removed the case to this court under federal question jurisdiction 20 given Muhammad’s reference to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act,

, et seq. 21 (the “FDCPA”). See Notice of Removal [Dkt. No. 1]; see also

Shortly 22

23 1 In a letter submitted to the court on June 25, 2025, Muhammad expressed confusion as to why his case is proceeding in federal court. Dkt. No. 7 (Letter). The federal removal statute allows for 24 removal of a case only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action.

(a) (allowing removal of a “civil action brought in a State court of which the district 25 courts of the United States have original jurisdiction”). Defendant’s notice of removal was premised on federal jurisdiction under

. That statute provides federal jurisdiction 26 over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Here, where Muhammad’s complaint invokes the FDCPA, a law of the United States, this court 27 possesses federal question jurisdiction over the action, meaning that CRM could rightfully remove 1 thereafter, CRM filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), 2 arguing that Muhammad’s “current form Complaint arising from Small Claims Court in state court 3 is so vague and ambiguous that CRM cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Motion for a More 4 Definite Statement (“Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 4]. On July 10, 2025, Muhammad filed a request for more 5 time to respond to the Motion. Dkt. No. 8. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 In federal court, the operative pleading must contain, “a short and plain statement of the 8 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “A Rule 12(e) motion 9 is considered in light of Rule 8’s liberal pleading standards.” Jercich v. Cnty. of Merced, No. 10 1:06CV00232 OWWDLB,

, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2006). Under Rule 12(e), 11 “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is 12 allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). 14 ORDER FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 15 In light of the complaint’s present deficiencies (which are clear on its face), and to 16 conserve the parties’ resources, instead of allowing Muhammad more time to respond to CRM’s 17 Motion I will GRANT the Motion and allow Muhammad sixty (60) days from the date of this 18 Order to amend his complaint to conform with the pleading standards set forth by Rule 8. 19 While Muhammad’s form Complaint was likely sufficient for Small Claims Court in state 20 court, now that the case has been removed he must meet the pleading standards set forth by Rule 21 8(a)(2). More factual information is required. The complaint presently alleges that CRM owes 22 Muhammad “$2000” for “[d]efamation of character, credit worthiness, credit standing [and] 23 reputation by reporting inaccurate erroneous and fraudulent information on [his] credit file,” 24 which “[d]amaged [his] credit by violating [his] rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and 25 Fair Debt Collections Act.” Dkt. No. 1-1, at p. 2. This is not enough to give notice to CRM or the 26 court of Muhammad’s claims. What inaccurate and fraudulent information did CRM report on his 27 1 credit file. How did that cause damage? He must state facts that make his conclusory statements 2 || plausible. 3 Courts regularly find similarly conclusory allegations to be insufficient to satisfy Rule 4 8(a)(2). See e.g., Isgar v. City of Bakersfield, No. 1:18-CV-0433 AWI JLT,

, at 5 *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018) (granting Rule 12(e) motion “where the cause of action itself [was] 6 || unclear” because “[a] defendant should not have to guess at what claims are actually being 7 asserted against him”); Callum v. Austin Cap. Bank, No. 221CV01484JAMCKDPS,

|| 4594510, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) (finding that, where plaintiff only alleged how much 9 money he believed defendants owed him and identified laws that he believes were broken, 10 “Ta|lthough plaintiff may have adequately completed the form required to proceed with his case in 11 state small claims court, he has not alleged sufficient facts to proceed in federal court[.]”). When 12 || he amends, Muhammad should take care to set forth as many concrete facts as he can, explaining 5 13 how he believes CRM has violated the law, how he has been injured, and what causes of action he 14 seeks to assert against CRM in light of those alleged violations and injury. 3 15 In advance of preparing the amended complaint, Muhammad may want to utilize this a 16 || Court’s resources for unrepresented parties. Parties representing themselves should visit the link 3 17 || titled “If You Don’t Have a Lawyer” on the Court’s homepage, www.cand.uscourts.gov. The link 18 || discusses the Court’s “Legal Help Center” for unrepresented parties. In San Francisco, the Legal 19 Help Center is located on the 15th Floor, Room 2796, of the courthouse at 450 Golden Gate 20 || Avenue. In Oakland, the Legal Help Center is located on the 4th Floor, Room 470S, of the 21 courthouse at 1301 Clay Street. To make an appointment for San Francisco or Oakland, call 415- 22 || 782-8982. 23 The Motion is GRANTED. Any amended complaint shall be filed within sixty (60) days 24 || of the date below. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: July 14, 2025 . \f CE 27 . 28 William H. Orrick United States District Judge