Daniels v. Verizon Wireless

Background

Brandon Daniels sued Verizon Wireless, identified in the opinion as Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Executive Relations. The complaint alleged that in April and July 2025, the plaintiff sent a payment and remittance coupon intended to satisfy a past-due account balance, but the defendants did not process or accept the payment. The complaint alleged that service was disconnected on or about July 27, 2025.

The filing identified the plaintiff as “Daniels, Brandon-Q, agent for BRANDON DANIELS.” It described “Daniels, Brandon-Q” as an agent bringing suit for an entity or trust referred to as “BRANDON DANIELS.” The court stated that it was unclear whether those names referred to the same person. If they did not, the court explained, Daniels, Brandon-Q could represent BRANDON DANIELS only if he were a licensed and admitted attorney. The complaint also stated that the plaintiff did not consent to the court’s jurisdiction, while the court held that filing a complaint in federal court constitutes consent to that court’s jurisdiction.

Claims Identified by the Court

The court stated that the complaint failed to state a claim for several reasons. It explained that the cited subsection 15 U.S.C. § 1692(f) does not exist and that § 1692(e) states the purpose of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act rather than supplying the alleged basis for relief. The court also stated that the complaint did not allege that the defendants were debt collectors collecting debts for others, as required for the described debt-collection theory.

For the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action under color of state law. The court stated that the defendants did not appear to be state actors and that a private entity generally does not act under color of state law. For the claim under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), the court stated that the provision concerns the purchase or sale of securities and that nothing in the complaint involved a securities purchase or sale.

Rulings

The court granted the application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because the complaint failed to state a claim, the court dismissed the complaint. The court did not order service of process at that time.

The court also denied the motion for a temporary restraining order. It relied on the same deficiencies in the complaint and stated that temporary emergency relief requires showing a likelihood of success, likely irreparable harm without relief, favorable balancing of the equities, and consistency with the public interest.

The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to try to correct the identified problems. It stated that filing an amended complaint would mean consenting to the court’s jurisdiction, including its authority to decide the merits and enter a final judgment. If the amended complaint stated a claim, the court would direct the U.S. Marshal to serve it. If the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint fixing the stated problems, the court would close the case.