Brunell St. Pierre v. Aidvantage Office Customer Advocate

St. Pierre · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · March 31, 2026 · No. 4:25-cv-12014-MRG

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the plaintiff’s motions to remand and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against the loan servicer were inadequately pleaded, including because the plaintiff did not plausibly allege notice to a consumer reporting agency and a resulting notice to the furnisher. The court also found the alleged credit-related injuries too conclusory to establish Article III standing, but granted leave to amend by May 1, 2026.

Holdings

  1. Claims against a furnisher under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c and 1681i fail because those provisions regulate consumer reporting agencies and do not apply to a defendant shown to be merely a furnisher of information.
  2. A consumer bringing a private action against a furnisher under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) must plausibly allege that a consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher of disputed information and that the furnisher then failed to investigate.
  3. A plaintiff asserting an FCRA violation must allege a concrete and particularized injury, in addition to a statutory violation; conclusory assertions that inaccurate reporting harmed creditworthiness or denied access to financing are insufficient.
  4. The federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff's only claim arose under the FCRA, so remand was unwarranted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's FCRA claims after removal.
  2. Whether Plaintiff stated a claim against a furnisher under FCRA provisions governing consumer reporting agencies.
  3. Whether Plaintiff plausibly stated a private FCRA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by alleging that a consumer reporting agency notified Defendant of a dispute.
  4. Whether Plaintiff alleged a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to establish Article III standing.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (27)

  • Doe v. Williston Northampton Sch., 766 F. Supp. 2d 310, 311-12 (D. Mass. 2011)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Gagliardi v. Sullivan, 513 F.3d 301, 305 (1st Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Penalbert-Rosa v. Fortuno-Burset, 631 F.3d 592, 594 (1st Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
  • Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)(followed)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)(followed)
  • Overton v. Torruella, 183 F. Supp. 2d 295, 303 (D. Mass. 2001)(followed)
  • Lefebvre v. Comm’r Internal Rev., 830 F.2d 417, 419 (1st Cir. 1987)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 27.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…