Citibank/Stenger & Stenger Motion to Dismiss My Counter Claim

Today I received paperwork from Stenger & Stenger for Motion To Dismiss Counter Claim. I read thorugh it and their main arguments are

"You Haven't Suffered Any Actual Harm (MRCPA)"

They argue that I haven't paid anything after the charge-off, so you can’t claim damages under the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA).

They cite cases saying that only people who suffer financial loss can sue under the MRCPA.

"Citibank is NOT a Debt Collector (FDCPA)"

They claim Citibank does not qualify as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

They cite cases stating that banks collecting their own debts are not debt collectors.

"Securitization Does NOT Affect Citibank's Right to Sue"

They argue that even if the debt was securitized, Citibank still has the legal right to collect.

They cite case law stating that securitization does not change the relationship between debtor and creditor.

The way I want to fight back on this would be:

Prove I Have Standing Under the MRCPA

Counter Their Argument:

The MRCPA does not require an actual financial loss—only deceptive or misleading collection attempts.

Stenger & Stenger falsely represented Citibank’s standing to sue—this is a deceptive collection practice under MCL 445.252(n).

File a Supplemental Brief: Show how Michigan courts have ruled in favor of consumers on misleading collection attempts.

Prove Citibank is Acting as a Debt Collector Under the FDCPA

Use the Mini-Miranda Warning Against Them:

Their own complaint contains the FDCPA Mini-Miranda warning, which is required only for debt collectors.

This is a contradiction—if they weren’t acting as a debt collector, why did they include this language?

Argue That Citibank is Not the Original Creditor

If the debt was securitized, Citibank must prove it repurchased the debt before collecting.

Demand Chain of Title: If Citibank cannot provide documentation proving ownership, they are acting as a third-party debt collector.

Attack Their "Securitization Doesn’t Matter" Argument

Use Your Exhibits (Citigroup Securitization Documents) to Show:

Citibank offloaded the debt into a trust and removed it from its balance sheets.

If the debt was securitized, Citibank must show an assignment back to them—which they haven’t provided.

To summarize: My Best Strategy would be to:

Challenge their claims on both the FDCPA and MRCPA grounds.

Force them to prove they own the debt.

Use their Mini-Miranda warning against them.

Show that misleading collection attempts qualify as MRCPA violations.

I was thinkinng of drafting a formal response to their Motion to Dismiss.

I can oppose dismissal and demand they provide evidence proving they still own the debt.

Then request a Motion to Compel Discovery

This forces them to provide assignment records, contracts, and full debt validation.

Are their videos or templates I can use to complete this? And is this a good idea?

I also have the document too if you need to see it.