Divon Daniel Wray v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al.

Summary

This Order and Report-Recommendation addresses Divon Daniel Wray’s pro se Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against Experian Information Solutions, Equifax Information Services, and TransUnion. The court recommends dismissal without prejudice and with leave to amend, concluding that Wray failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing and failed to plead plausible claims under the FCRA. The court grants Wray’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and recommends a 45-day period for amendment if the district court adopts the recommendation.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff asserting FCRA violations must allege a concrete and particularized injury, and allegations consisting only of procedural violations and conclusory assertions of damages do not establish standing.
2. A plaintiff must plausibly allege the inaccurate information, deficient procedures or reinvestigation, injury, and causation necessary to support claims under §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i; merely alleging that errors existed or that defendants conducted sham reinvestigations is insufficient.
3. A plaintiff must plausibly allege that the required identity-theft documentation and information were provided to the consumer reporting agency and that the agency then failed to perform its statutory blocking duty.
4. A § 1681b claim against a consumer reporting agency requires plausible allegations that the consumer report was furnished to or accessed by a third party for an impermissible purpose and that the CRA negligently or willfully failed to maintain reasonable procedures preventing the violation.
5. A valid FCRA reinsertion or reinsertion-notice claim requires plausible allegations that the information was previously deleted pursuant to a § 1681i(a)(1) reinvestigation and was then improperly reinserted or not timely reported to the consumer.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wray pleaded a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to establish Article III standing for his FCRA claims.
2. Whether Wray plausibly alleged that defendants violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i by failing to maintain reasonable accuracy and reinvestigation procedures.
3. Whether Wray plausibly alleged a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2 for failure to block information allegedly resulting from identity theft.
4. Whether Wray plausibly alleged a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b concerning impermissible furnishing or use of his consumer report.
5. Whether Wray plausibly alleged that defendants improperly reinserted information under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5).

Disposition

other