Lopez III v. Trans Union LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOTERO MONTELLANO
LOPEZ III,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS UNION LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-12733
Honorable Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF NO. 41)
I. 	Introduction
Defendant Trans Union LLC, with Defendant Experian Information
Solutions, Inc.’s consent, removed this action from Wayne County Circuit
Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, claiming subject-matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Matthew
F. Leitman referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 11.
The Court ordered the parties to show cause why the action should
not be dismissed or remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 7

2
because Plaintiff Sotero Montellano Lopez III failed to state a plausible
federal claim. ECF No. 33. Lopez moves for leave to amend his
complaint, and neither Trans Union nor Experian have opposed the motion.
ECF No. 41. The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Lopez’s motion.
II. 	Analysis
A.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that leave to amend
should be freely given “when justice so requires.” But a motion to amend
“should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad faith, for dilatory
purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, or
would be futile.” 	Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 294 (6th Cir. 2010)
(cleaned up). “A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” 	Rose v. Hartford
Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests a complaint’s legal
sufficiency. “To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Iqbal Court
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 7

3
explained, “[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.” 	Id. 	The complaint’s
allegations “must do more than create speculation or suspicion of a legally
cognizable cause of action; they must show entitlement to relief.” 	League
of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir.
2007).
In deciding whether a plaintiff has set forth a plausible claim, the
Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
and accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations. 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. But “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” id., and the
Court has no duty to create a claim not spelled out in the pleadings,
Freightliner of Knoxville, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Vans, LLC, 484 F.3d 865,
871 n.4 (6th Cir. 2007). Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are entitled to a
more liberal reading than would be afforded to formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, but such complaints still must plead a plausible claim for relief.
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 7

4
Davis v. Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2012);
Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007).
B.
The amended complaint alleges that Trans Union and Experian
reported Lopez’s bankruptcy under the name “Sotero Lopez” rather than
“Sotero Montellano Lopez III.” ECF No. 41, PageID.1703. This alleged
inaccuracy caused the bankruptcy to be reported on the credit reports of
Sotero Lopez II and Sotero Lopez Sr., Lopez’s father and grandfather,
respectively. 	Id. 	Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC allegedly
reported no bankruptcy at all. 	Id.
Lopez claims that he filed complaints with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, which forwarded the disputes to defendants. 	Id.,
PageID.1704. But defendants allegedly failed to investigate or correct the
inaccuracies. 	Id. 	Lopez claims that he has been denied loans from three
lenders because of the inaccuracies. 	Id. 	He asserts three claims for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and one claim for violation of
Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act. 	Id., PageID.1704-1707.
The amended complaint excludes much of the “legal-sounding but
meaningless verbiage commonly used by adherents to the so-called
sovereign citizen movement” that the Court noted in it’s order to show
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 7

5
cause was “nothing more than a nullity.” 	See ECF No. 33, PageID.430
(quoting Brown v. Hangley, No. 23-CV-1265, 2023 WL 5153513, at *2 n.4
(E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2023)) (cleaned up). Instead, the amended complaint
sets out Lopez’s claims in an understandable way. And defendants filed no
opposition to the motion to amend nor argued that the claims are futile.
Thus, the Court grants Lopez’s motion to amend and accepted in part the
amended complaint at ECF No. 41, PageID.1702-1711, as the operative
complaint.
Section V of the amended complaint, entitled “Alternative Settlement
Tender Notice,” discusses Lopez’s attempts to settle the dispute via a bill of
exchange, promissory note, security agreement, and financing statement.
Id., PageID.1707-1709. The section also references reservations of rights
under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and includes other rhetoric
characteristic of the sovereign citizen movement. 	Id.; see Davis v. Heaton,
No. 1:24-cv-1050, 2025 WL 2412452, at *3 (W.D. Mich. July 30, 2025)
(“The inclusion of ‘UCC 1-308’ and similar disclaimers ‘is a frequent and
common tactic by those who adhere to the sovereign citizen movement.’”).
The final paragraph of Section VII, “Relief Requested,” also
references a UCC financing statement as evidence of mitigation and
settlement efforts. ECF No. 41, PageID.1710. That paragraph and Section
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 7

6
V neither advance claims for relief nor supply factual allegations supporting
Lopez’s claims. Thus, these portions are excluded from the amended
complaint.
Last, subsection (f) of Section VII requests leave to issue discovery
subpoenas to third parties. 	Id. 	This discovery request must be made as
permitted under Rules 26 through 37 and Rule 45.1 It is thus improperly
advanced in the amended complaint and is also excluded.
III. 	Conclusion
The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Lopez’s
motion to amend (ECF No. 41). The Court accepts in part Lopez’s
amended complaint as the new operative complaint, excluding:
• 	Section V (ECF No. 41, PageID.1707-1709);
• 	The last paragraph of Section VII (ECF No. 41, PageID.1710);
and
• 	Subsection (f) of Section VII (ECF No. 41, PageID.1710).
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
1 Except in limited circumstances inapplicable here, discovery is premature
until the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(d)(1).
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 6 of 7

7
Dated: December 8, 2025
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on December 8, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-12733-MFL-EAS ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/08/25 Page 7 of 7