Boyle v. CoVantage Credit Union et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SHANNON T. BOYLE, 	Case No. 	2:25-cv-158
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
U.S. District Judge
v.
COVANTAGE CREDIT UNION & CHARLIE ZANAYED,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This Report and Recommendation (R. & R.) considers sua sponte this Court’s
subject matter jurisdiction in this matter and respectfully recommends dismissal of
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	In addition, this R. & R. addresses
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was filed on Aug. 18, 2025, and, as an
alternative, respectfully recommends that the Court grant their motion. 	(ECF No.
7.) 	Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Pro Se Plaintiff Shannon T. Boyle filed the present action against CoVantage
Credit Union and CoVantage President Charlie Zanayed on July 29, 2025. 1 	(ECF
1 	Boyle has filed four other cases that fail to invoke this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction and/or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	See Boyle
v. State of Michigan Child Protective Services, et al., W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-
161-RJJ; Boyle v. Iron County Friend of the Court, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-162-
JMB; Boyle v. United States Attorney General, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-173-PLM;
Boyle v. Peretto, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-223-JMB.
Case 2:25-cv-00158-PLM-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 1
of 7

2
No. 1.) 	Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction based on “denial of personal
loans, extortion, Fair and Lending Act.” 	(Id., PageID.3.) 	Plaintiff originally
requested $10 billion in damages but later raised that request to $25 billion. 	(ECF
No. 5.) 	The complaint alleges, in its entirety:
(ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) 	Plaintiff’s complaint raises alleged injuries to “CoVantage
members.” 	There are no factual allegations that pertain directly to Plaintiff Boyle.
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the
Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case.
II. Motion to Dismiss
The Federal Rules provide that a claim may be dismissed for “failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 	To survive a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 	Put differently, if plaintiffs
do “not nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their
complaint must be dismissed.” 	Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Case 2:25-cv-00158-PLM-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 2
of 7

3
In determining whether a claim has facial plausibility, a court must construe
the 	complaint 	in 	the 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	the 	plaintiff, 	accept 	the 	factual
allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008). Those
factual allegations “must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all
the material elements to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.” 	League
of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal
citations omitted).
III. Analysis
“As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise only those powers
authorized by the Constitution and statute.” 	Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th
Cir. 2001). 	Federal courts have an on-going obligation to examine whether they
have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action and may raise the issue sua sponte.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,
506 (2006). 	This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over actions that
involve “federal questions” that arise under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties
of the United States. 	28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	Ultimately, the plaintiff bears the burden
of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction. 	Peterson v. City of Grand Rapids,
182 F. Supp. 3d 750, 753 (W.D. Mich. 2016) (citing RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse
Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir.1996)).
As a starting point, Shannon Boyle has asserted no facts or claims in his
complaint that trigger federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, diversity
Case 2:25-cv-00158-PLM-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 3
of 7

4
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or any other basis for jurisdiction under Title 28.
Thus, the undersigned recommends dismissal of this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Additionally, the claims Boyle asserts in his complaint are on behalf of
members of CoVantage Credit Union generally. 	Boyle is not an attorney and, as a
pro se litigant, he cannot represent other plaintiffs. 	See Martin v. Fennville Pub.
Sch. Dist., No. 1:21-CV-202, 2021 WL 5579204, at *1 (W.D. Mich. May 4, 2021) (“As
a non-attorney, pro se plaintiff . . . cannot represent another pro se plaintiff”).
Further, if Boyle filed a motion on behalf of CoVantage members, Plaintiff Boyle
would be in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which provides, with emphasis added, that
“[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to
manage and conduct causes therein.” 	Finally, plaintiffs must sign his own pleadings
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 	On this basis alone, the case should be dismissed.
Furthermore, Boyle has not alleged facts showing that he has standing to
redress the CoVantage members’ claim, assuming one exists. 	For a plaintiff to
invoke federal jurisdiction to bring suit in the federal courts, he must demonstrate
standing. 	Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561–62 (1992); Lynch v. Leis,
382 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir. 2004). 	Standing is central to the “case-or-controversy”
requirement associated with Article III of the Constitution. 	Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). 	Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he (1)
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the
Case 2:25-cv-00158-PLM-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 4
of 7

5
defendant, and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
Id. 	An injury in fact is a harm suffered by a plaintiff that (1) concrete and
particularized and (2) not conjectural or hypothetical. 	Nader v. Blackwell, 545 F.3d
459, 471 (6th Cir. 2008).
Traceability requires “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of” and that the conduct not be a result of “the independent action of some
third party.” 	Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. 	(internal quotation marks omitted). 	And for
an injury to be redressable, it must be “likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” 	Id. at 561 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Boyle’s complaint does not identify a claim that pertains to him personally.
Boyle has failed to identify an injury in fact. 	The asserted cause of action, if one
exists, belongs to the CoVantage members generally. 	Boyle is not an attorney and
cannot represent the CoVantage members’ interests in this case.
Further, as alleged, the complaint fails to assert a federal cause of action. 	As
Defendants identify in their motion to dismiss, the complaint merely states, “Denial
of personal loans” and “extortion” without legal basis. 	(ECF No. 7, PageID.16.)
These assertions are legally insufficient to confer federal question or diversity
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff also alleges a violation of the “federal fair lending act” but he fails to
set forth allegations explaining his asserted claim. 	As Defendants point out,
Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
Case 2:25-cv-00158-PLM-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 5
of 7

6
15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. or a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA),
15 U.S.C. § 1991 et seq.
“TILA requires that creditors make certain disclosures as to the terms of
lending arrangements and provides for civil liability for failure to comply with its
provisions.” 	United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 294 (6th Cir. 2009). 	“[A]n
action under TILA can be brought only against creditors or their assignees. 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1640–1641. TILA defines a creditor as someone who both regularly extends
consumer credit and is initially due payment for debt arising from a consumer-credit
transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g).” 	Mourad v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 517 F.
App’x 360, 364 (6th Cir. 2013. 	Plaintiff fails to explain how Defendants violated his
rights.
Finally, under the ECOA, it is unlawful for a creditor to discriminate against
an applicant based upon “race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status,
or age” or because they receive public assistance, or for exercising rights in good faith
under 	the 	ECOA. 	15 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1691. 	Again, 	Plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	allege
discrimination or that Defendants denied him access to credit.
IV. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends dismissal of the case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	Alternatively, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Dated: 	November 25, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00158-PLM-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 6
of 7

7
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed and served within
fourteen days of service of this notice on you. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). 	All objections and responses to objections are governed by W.D. Mich.
LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any
further right of appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 2:25-cv-00158-PLM-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 7
of 7