Wang v. Verizon Communications Inc.

Background

Hao Zhe Wang, proceeding without a lawyer, sued twenty-six or twenty-seven defendants with variations of the name “Verizon.” He alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Massachusetts Regulation of Business Practices for Consumers Protection Act. Twenty-five entities—the “Moving Defendants”—asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

The opinion states that the number of defendants was unclear because the amended complaint used both “Verizon Services Organization Inc.” and “Verizon Services Operations Inc.” Verizon Media LLC and Verizon Teleproducts Corp. did not move to dismiss; a defense declaration stated that Verizon Media LLC had never existed and Verizon Teleproducts Corp. had ceased to exist in 2019.

Rule 8 and the Allegations

The court explained that Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement giving each defendant fair notice of the claims and the factual basis for them. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, that leniency does not eliminate the Rule 8 requirements.

The court found that Wang’s amended complaint failed to make particularized allegations against the individual defendants. It grouped the entities together and referred to them collectively as “Verizon,” without explaining what any particular defendant did. The court recognized that group allegations can sometimes be allowed when defendants are alleged to have acted identically or as a common enterprise. But Wang alleged no facts supporting the existence of a common enterprise among these entities, such as common officers or employees, common control, shared offices, commingled funds, or shared advertising and marketing.

Wang argued that discovery could reveal which Verizon entity collected the debt and whether entity names had been falsely provided to debt-collection firms and credit-reporting agencies. The court rejected that argument, explaining that discovery cannot be used to search for factual support when the complaint contains only conclusions. The defendants had also disclosed that Verizon New England Inc. was the one entity that established, owned, operated, and managed Wang’s account.

Ruling and Effect

The court held that the pleading deficiencies applied equally to all defendants. It therefore dismissed Wang’s claims against all defendants, not only the Moving Defendants. The court granted the Moving Defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety.

Because Wang was representing himself, the court granted him leave to amend—that is, permission to file another complaint—to cure the Rule 8 deficiencies. Wang had thirty days from the date of the opinion to do so. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint within that period would result in dismissal with prejudice and closure of the case. The court also warned that naming an entity without a good-faith basis for believing it was responsible could lead to sanctions under Rule 11. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing costs for purposes of an appeal.