Gregory Makozy and Maria Makozy v. Equifax Information Systems, LLC

Makozy v. Equifax · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · April 13, 2026 · No. 25-cv-14456-CANNON/MATTHEWMAN

Summary

A Chief United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting Equifax Information Systems LLC’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Report and Recommendation concludes that the pro se plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege violations involving inaccurate reporting, reinvestigation, disclosure restrictions, or willful or negligent noncompliance, but recommends dismissal without prejudice and one additional opportunity to amend.

Holdings

  1. The First Amended Complaint did not state a plausible § 1681f claim because it failed to make sufficiently specific allegations explaining how Equifax violated that provision.
  2. The First Amended Complaint did not plausibly allege claims under §§ 1681e or 1681i because it made only vague and conclusory assertions that Equifax reported false information and did not identify specific inaccurate information or unreasonable procedures.
  3. Because Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an underlying violation of §§ 1681e, 1681f, or 1681i, they also failed to plausibly allege negligent or willful FCRA violations under §§ 1681o and 1681n.
  4. The First Amended Complaint remained deficient because it failed to identify the particular legal bases for liability and did not provide factual allegations supporting separate causes of action.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681f.
  2. Whether the First Amended Complaint plausibly alleged violations of FCRA §§ 1681e and 1681i based on inaccurate reporting and failure to reasonably investigate disputed information.
  3. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged negligent or willful FCRA noncompliance under §§ 1681o and 1681n.
  4. Whether the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failing to identify the particular legal bases for liability and for failing to comply with the court's prior order requiring a non-shotgun pleading.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (16)

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 678-81 (2009)(followed)
  • Dusek v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 832 F.3d 1243, 1246 (11th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Franklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)(followed)
  • Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Casper v. United States, No. 23-24804-CV, 2024 WL 516959, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2024)(followed)
  • Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • Gordon v. Henry Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:22-CV-1517-CAP-CCB, 2022 WL 22905387, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 13, 2022)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…