McDuel v. Mini Storage Depot - Eastern

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
STEPHANIE MCDUEL, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-1260
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Chief U.S. District Judge
v.
MINI STORAGE DEPOT - EASTERN,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff Stephanie McDuel filed this lawsuit against Defendant Mini
Storage Depot – Eastern. (ECF No. 1.) 	McDuel alleges that she entered into a rental
agreement for a storage unit with Defendant on November 18, 2024. (Id., PageID.2.)
McDuel alleges that the agreement contained provisions that “unreasonably favor
Defendant” 	such 	as 	(1) 	a 	mandatory 	binding 	arbitration 	clause, 	(2) 	liability
disclaimers, (3) a requirement for Plaintiff to indemnify Defendant, and (4) warranty
disclaimers. (Id.) 	McDuel says that the agreement that she signed with Defendant
violates the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901, et seq.,
that it is unconscionable, and that it violates the Consumer Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1681, or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. 	(Id.,
PageID.2-3.) 	McDuel requests that the Court declare that the contract that she
entered into with Defendant is void, enjoin Defendant from contracting with other
Michigan consumers using these contractual provisions, and award her statutory and
Case 1:25-cv-01260-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 1
of 5

2
punitive damages.
On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status. (ECF No.
5.)
II. Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Id. The court
must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
Case 1:25-cv-01260-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 2
of 5

3
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
III. 	Analysis
As a starting point, Plaintiff has failed to assert an actual case or controversy.
On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant to rent a
storage unit. (ECF No. 1-1.) It is important to note that Plaintiff may terminate the
contract by providing “(30) days written notice to vacate.” (Id., PageID.4.) 	A federal
court may only decide “cases” and “controversies.” 	U.S. Const., art. III, § 2. 	To
establish standing, a plaintiff must show (1) that she suffered an injury-in-fact; “that
is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical;” and (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to Defendant’s conduct.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000)
(citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Here, Plaintiff has failed
to allege any injury that she actually suffered or any injury that is imminent and not
hypothetical. For this reason, the Court may dismiss the complaint as frivolous.
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under federal law. 	The Fair Credit Reporting Act exists “to ensure fair and
accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect
consumer privacy. 	To that end, § 1681s–2 is designed to prevent ‘furnishers of
information’ from spreading inaccurate consumer-credit information.” 	Boggio v.
USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Safeco Ins. Co. v.
Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007)). 	The Fair Debt
Case 1:25-cv-01260-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 3
of 5

4
Collection Practices Act bans false, deceptive, or misleading debt-collection practices.
Buchanan v. Northland Grp., Inc., 776 F.3d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 2015). 	Plaintiff has
failed to allege any facts that could possibly state a claim under either Act.
To 	the 	extent 	that 	Plaintiff 	is 	asserting 	violations 	of 	state 	law, 	it 	is
recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those
claims. In determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the
avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly
deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182
(6th Cir. 1993). 	Ordinarily, when a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a
state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims
are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id.
Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio,
Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny's Lunch
Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012).
If the Court adopts the undersigned’s recommendation, it will dismiss all of
Plaintiff’s federal claims. The balance of the relevant considerations would therefore
weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. 	As such, the undersigned
respectfully recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
IV. Recommendation
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court dismiss
the complaint because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may
Case 1:25-cv-01260-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 4
of 5

5
be granted.
Dated: 	December 3, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 1:25-cv-01260-HYJ-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 5
of 5