Summary
This United States District Court opinion rules on a motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court examines claims concerning inaccurate credit reporting and the permissible purposes for furnishing consumer reports. While the motion is denied regarding the allegation that the credit bureau failed to follow reasonable accuracy procedures, it is granted with prejudice regarding the claim about impermissible furnishing purposes.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff’s allegations satisfy the pleading requirements for a claim under 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Whether the plaintiff states a viable claim under 15 U.S.C. §1681b(a)(2) concerning permissible purpose.
Holdings
- The motion to dismiss Count I is denied; the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim under §1681e(b).
- The motion to dismiss Count II is granted with prejudice; the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant furnished the report without a permissible purpose.
Key quotations
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
“The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”
Factual background
Plaintiff Khaleel Artis alleged that TransUnion and Experian reported inaccurate information about several credit accounts and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. He identified the disputed accounts and claimed TransUnion did not obtain his written instructions before furnishing the reports.
Procedural history
Artis originally filed a pro se FCRA suit; three claims were dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiff was allowed to amend. The amended complaint asserted two counts—one under §1681e(b) and one under §1681b(2). Defendants moved to dismiss both counts. The court denied the motion in part (Count I) and granted it in part (Count II).