Which Grounds to Use for Motion to Dismiss? (Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC by Stenger & Stenger)

Following service of the summons and complaint, I drafted and sent an FDCPA violations letter with the help of ParkerGPT and the rocketship (enhance) button. After watching several videos and using ParkerGPT to compare strategies (Answer with Counterclaim vs. Motion to Dismiss), I've decided to draft and file a MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT, with the backup of an Answer and Counterclaim if the motion is denied.

I've received mixed responses from ParkerGPT, despite using the rocketship button for each of my prompts, and attaching the summons, complaint, and my FDCPA letter. First, it states MCR 2.116(C)(3) and (5) as the grounds for the motion (see references for each grounds below), but also cites MCR 2.116(C)(8), despite excluding it from the header, title, and the "Brief and Court Rules" and "Conclusion" sections. (C)(5) seems alright since there's no evidence ARI owns the debt, but my research indicates the (C)(3) doesn't seem to apply to my case, since the service of process all seems in order, to the best of my knowledge. The complaint also seemingly lists all the required factual statements for a valid legal claim under MCR 445.251, weakening grounds under (C)(8). I followed up by asking for clarity on which grounds under MCR 2.116(C) are most applicable and strongest for this case: it then suggests (C)(10), and (C)(8) again. My research indicates MCR 2.116(C)(10) is not typically used to dismiss a case at the pleadings stage when allegations remain disputed. Maybe my research is all wrong, but I double-triple check everything any AI outputs, even ParkerGPT.

It also briefly covered (C)(7) for Statute of Limitations (SOL) based on the plaintiff's inclusion of the account opening date in 2014, and my inclusion of SOL in the FDCPA letter. I'm leery of using (C)(7) though, since I can't swear upon any particular dates in my Affidavit, nor do I have proof of last use or payment on the account, which may still meet the 6-year requirement of SOL in Michigan. I believe (C)(7) is weak at best, and harmful at worst, striking upon my credibility if the plaintiff produces proof it meets SOL later.

Referencing MCR 2.116(C) to establish my considerations for grounds thus far:

(C) Grounds. The motion may be based on one or more of these grounds, and must specify the grounds on which it is based:

(1) The court lacks jurisdiction over the person or property. NO - court's jurisdiction applies; filed in the County I live in, and name is correct despite having a slight mispelling

(2) The process issued in the action was insufficient. NO - summons and complain appear to be filed correctly

(3) The service of process was insufficient. NO - process service was done correctly

(4) The court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. NO - Correct court for the case; District Court or Smalls Claims considered acceptable for the amount

(5) The party asserting the claim lacks the legal capacity to sue. YES - Most suitable grounds; no evidence of legal capacity, such as assignment of debt

(6) Another action has been initiated between the same parties involving the same claim. NO - No other actions have been initiated involving the same claim

(7) Entry of judgment, dismissal of the action, or other relief is appropriate because of release, payment, prior judgment, immunity granted by law, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, an agreement to arbitrate or to litigate in a different forum, infancy or other disability of the moving party, or assignment or other disposition of the claim before commencement of the action. POSSIBLE - Statute of Limitations exceeded based on stated claims, though proof may harm this defense later; there maybe something useable in the statute of frauds for my case too

(8) The opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. NO - the complaint lists required factual statements for a valid legal claim under MCR 445.251

(9) The opposing party has failed to state a valid defense to the claim asserted against him or her. NO - not applicable to defendant

(10) Except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. NO - not typically used to dismiss a case at the pleadings stage when allegations remain disputed

This lawsuit was filed without an Affidavit or any documentation support the account stated claims. While I know this might be to my advantage, I'm unsure which grounds to use, since all templates for Motion to Dismiss available in the Document Downloads differ from my case, citing the plaintiff's attached documents. I'm most confident with using (C)(5) only now, since this seems to be the Brian Parker standard, but I'm left questioning if I'm bringing the strongest grounds for dismissal.

I think the point is being prepared for the Motion to Dismiss to be denied, and the alternative Motion for More Definite Statement to be accepted, "splitting the baby in half," as Mr. Parker so states. I just want to ensure my credibility isn't harmed, and that the grounds I bring aren't simply viewed as throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Seeking input from anybody in the forum who's been in a similar position. Thanks.