Muhammad v. Credence Resource Management, LLC
- William Orrick
- 3:25-cv-04952
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Muhammad v. Credence Resource Management, Judge Orrick granted CRM’s motion for a more definite statement and gave Muhammad 60 days to amend.
Derrick Muhammad must file an amended complaint within 60 days with more specific factual allegations. Credence Resource Management, LLC receives a clearer pleading against which it can prepare a response.
What happened
In Muhammad v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, Derrick Muhammad alleged that Credence Resource Management reported inaccurate information on his credit file, harming his credit and causing higher interest and fees. He referenced federal credit-reporting and debt-collection laws, and the company removed the case from state small-claims court to federal court.
The court found that Muhammad’s complaint did not provide enough facts for the company or the court to understand his claims. It granted the company’s request for a clearer statement and allowed Muhammad 60 days to file an amended complaint with more specific facts about the information reported, how it caused harm, and the legal claims he intended to bring.
Judge William H. Orrick issued the order on July 14, 2025. The order addressed the adequacy of the complaint and did not decide whether Muhammad’s underlying claims would ultimately succeed.
The detailed version
- Muhammad v. Credence Resource Management, LLC · No. 3:25-cv-04952
- William Orrick
- July 14, 2025
Background
Derrick Muhammad, representing himself, filed a small-claims complaint against Credence Resource Management, LLC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Pittsburg, on May 1, 2025. He alleged that the company reported inaccurate, erroneous, and fraudulent information on his credit file, harming his character, creditworthiness, credit standing, and reputation. He also alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collections Act, and stated that he suffered higher interest and fees because of a lower credit score. The complaint sought $2,000.
Credence Resource Management removed the case to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint referred to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The company then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement, arguing that the complaint was too vague and ambiguous to allow it to prepare a response. Muhammad requested more time to respond to that motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a federal complaint must contain a short and plain statement showing that the person bringing the case is entitled to relief. Under Rule 12(e), a party may request a more definite statement when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.
The court found that the complaint’s deficiencies were clear on its face. Although the form complaint may have been sufficient for state small-claims court, it did not satisfy the federal pleading standard. The complaint did not identify what inaccurate or fraudulent information Credence Resource Management reported, explain how that reporting caused damage, or identify clearly which legal claims Muhammad sought to assert. The court therefore found that the allegations were conclusory rather than supported by enough concrete facts.
Disposition
The court granted Credence Resource Management’s motion for a more definite statement. Instead of giving Muhammad additional time to respond to the motion, the court allowed him 60 days from July 14, 2025, to file an amended complaint complying with Rule 8. The court directed him to provide as many concrete facts as possible about how the company allegedly violated the law, how he was injured, and what causes of action he intended to pursue. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.