The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendant Franklin Collection Service, Inc.'s (Franklin) motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the court grants the motion.
Plaintiff Michael Todd (Todd) alleges that he is the assignee of legal claims that originally belonged to Vicki Fletcher (Fletcher). Fletcher allegedly owed a debt to AT&T (AT&T Debt) that Franklin attempted to collect. Franklin allegedly reported the AT&T Debt, which had become an account with Franklin (Franklin Account), to TransUnion and Equifax (collectively, Credit Reporting Agencies). According to Todd, sometime between September 2010 and February 2011, AT&T allegedly recalled the AT&T Debt from Franklin. Although the AT&T Debt was allegedly recalled from Franklin, and the Franklin Account was closed as a result, Franklin allegedly failed to inform the Credit Reporting Agencies that the Franklin Account was closed or recalled until August 3, 2011, at the earliest.
Todd alleges that Franklin knew that the Franklin Account needed to be updated upon recall of the AT&T Debt from Franklin, but that Franklin "has a policy and procedure to refuse to properly update credit reports of consumers, like Fletcher," so that false information remains on the credit reports of consumers. (Compl. Par. 22). In addition, Todd alleges that Franklin's alleged failure to provide an update to the Credit Reporting Agencies regarding the Franklin Account was willful, malicious, reckless, wanton, and/or negligent. Todd further alleges that Franklin's alleged failure to provide an update to the Credit Reporting Agencies regarding the Franklin Account was in violation of Franklin's agreements with the Credit Reporting Agencies, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state law.
As a result of Franklin's alleged failure to inform the Credit Reporting Agencies that the Franklin Account was closed or recalled, Fletcher, her credit worthiness, and/or her credit score were allegedly harmed. Todd includes in his pro se complaint a state law negligence claim (Count I), a state law gross negligence claim (Count II), and a claim alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Count III). Franklin has moved to dismiss all claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (Rule 12(b)(3)) provides that a party may move to dismiss an action when the action is not filed in the proper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). If the court finds that venue is improper, the court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In analyzing whether the "interest of justice" supports transferring a case, the court must focus on the "efficient administration of the court system." Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 221 (7th Cir. 1986)(applying the interest of justice analysis to a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)), a court must "accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint" and make reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)(stating that the tenet is "inapplicable to legal conclusions"); Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002). To defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) 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." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted)(quoting in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Since Todd is proceeding pro se, the court has liberally construed Todd's filings. See, e.g., McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000).
Franklin argues that the Northern District of Illinois is not a proper venue for
the instant action, and moves for dismissal based on Rule 12(b)(3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), "[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, ...