Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. McDowell Quail, LLC; The Dwell at Carmel Apartments; Pegasus Residential, LLC; McCann Realty Partners, LLC; Hamilton Bay Apartments; Hamiltons Bay Condominium Association, Inc.; Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Nacam Management LLC; Equifax Information Services, LLC; Arra Victoria Nelsen; National Credit Systems, Inc.; The Law Office of Brett M. Borland, P.C.; James Raye; and TransUnion LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina grants Ebony Sherisse Lucas’s motion for reconsideration and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court permits her Fair Credit Reporting Act claim to proceed but dismisses her claims under the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, wire fraud statute, civil RICO, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Privacy Act, Securities Exchange Act, and various state-law theories, several without prejudice. The court orders that any recovery remain subject to payment of the filing fee and other costs.

Holdings

1. Lucas's motion for reconsideration was granted and she was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis because, despite having expected expenses slightly below expected income, she supported a disabled dependent and lacked sufficient assets to pay the filing fee.
2. The complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a non-frivolous FCRA claim because Lucas alleged that disputed information was reported, that she disputed the debt with the consumer reporting agencies and a debt collector, and that the information remained on her reports.
3. The TILA claim was dismissed because Lucas did not allege facts showing that any defendant was a TILA creditor and because the claim was barred by TILA's one-year limitations period.
4. The FDCPA claim was dismissed without prejudice because Lucas did not identify which defendants violated the Act or specify conduct constituting an FDCPA violation.
5. The wire-fraud claim was dismissed because 18 U.S.C. § 1343 does not create a private right of action.
6. The civil RICO claim was dismissed without prejudice because Lucas failed to allege a distinct enterprise, continuity, or predicate acts establishing a pattern of racketeering activity.
7. The CFAA claim was dismissed because Lucas alleged, at most, misuse of information obtained through authorized access, not access without authorization or access exceeding authorized limits.
8. The GLBA claim was dismissed because the statute does not provide a private right of action.
9. The Privacy Act claim was dismissed because the Act applies to federal agencies and Lucas sued only private entities and individuals.
10. The claims for intrusion upon seclusion, fraud, constructive fraud, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting fraud, libel or defamation, UDTPA violations, and Securities Exchange Act violations were dismissed without prejudice because the complaint did not identify the responsible defendants or specify when or how the alleged violations occurred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lucas met the financial requirements to proceed in forma pauperis after reconsideration.
2. Whether the complaint stated a non-frivolous FCRA claim against the alleged furnishers and consumer reporting agencies.
3. Whether the TILA claim was adequately pleaded and timely.
4. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded an FDCPA claim.
5. Whether private causes of action existed for the alleged wire fraud and GLBA violations.
6. Whether the complaint stated claims under RICO, the CFAA, the Privacy Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and the identified state-law causes of action.

Disposition

other