Andrew Lamar Pitts d/b/a Godallah Global v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax Information Services, LLC; Trans Union, LLC; Criag Bounty; Mark Begor; and Chris Cartwright

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court held that the consumer reporting agency defendants were not adequately alleged to be debt collectors, and that the FCRA claims lacked specific allegations of inaccurate or unverifiable information and reasonable reinvestigation failures. The court also dismissed the claims against individual corporate officers and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, closing the case.

Holdings

1. Pitts abandoned his FDCPA claims by failing to mention or respond to the FDCPA arguments in his opposition to the motion to dismiss; that failure independently warranted dismissal.
2. The FDCPA claims against the consumer reporting agencies failed because Pitts did not plausibly allege that the agencies were debt collectors or that they attempted to collect debts; allegations that the agencies improperly reported debts were insufficient.
3. Pitts failed to state FCRA claims because he did not identify specific information that was inaccurate, unverifiable, or misleading and pleaded only conclusory violations of the FCRA.
4. The FCRA claims against Begor, Bounty, and Cartwright failed because Pitts alleged no personal participation by them and sought to impose liability solely based on their employment by the consumer reporting agencies.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pitts abandoned his FDCPA claims by failing to address Defendants' arguments for dismissal in his opposition brief.
2. Whether the consumer reporting agencies qualified as debt collectors under the FDCPA based on allegations that they improperly reported debts.
3. Whether Pitts adequately pleaded FCRA claims based on allegedly unverifiable or inaccurate information, failure to assure maximum accuracy, and continued reporting after direct disputes.
4. Whether the individual defendants could be held personally liable under the FCRA solely because of their employment by the consumer reporting agencies.

Disposition

dismissed