Bates v. Transunion LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (car, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEE BATES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 11-51

TRANS UNION LLC, ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion1 for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by defendant, Equifax Information Services LLC
(“Equifax”). Plaintiff, Lee Bates, has not filed an opposition. For the following reasons,
defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on January 11, 2011.2 The complaint, which names 35
defendants, alleges that there is inaccurate information on plaintiff’s credit file. Plaintiff alleges
that “[o]n or about February 19, 2010, I received copies of my credit reports which showed
erroneous, inaccurate data regarding my persons and financial and business transactions.”3
Plaintiff claims that he “made numerous attempts to contact the above defendants to rectify and
resolve [his] concerns to no avail.”4 Plaintiff further claims that “[a]s a direct result and
proximate cause of defendant(s)’ continued reporting of erroneous, inaccurate, and adverse

1

R. Doc. No. 5.
R. Doc. No. 1.
3
Id. at ¶19.
4
Id. at ¶20.
2

1

information to the credit reporting agencies,” he has been denied credit and refinancing and has
suffered damages including “humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of opportunity.”5
With respect to Equifax, specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant “failed to adopt and
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiff’s consumer
credit and other personal information.”6 Plaintiff further alleges that Equifax “failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation of Plaintiff’s disputes and otherwise failed to comport with FCRA 1681i
[sic].”7 Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings arguing that plaintiff’s complaint fails
to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) states that, “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but
early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” A Rule 12(c)
motion is subject to the same standard applicable to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim. Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F .3d 503, 529 (5th Cir. 2004).
A Rule 12(c) motion “is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in
dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the
pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Hebert Abstract Co. v. Touchstone
Props., Ltd., 914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990)). When analyzing such a claim, “[p]leadings should
be construed liberally, and judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only if there are no disputed
issues of fact and only questions of law remain.” Id. ( citing Hughes v. Tobacco Inst ., Inc., 278
F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001)). Further, a district court “may dismiss a claim when it is clear that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim that would entitle [her] to relief.”
5

Id. at ¶21.
Id. at ¶41.
7
Id. at ¶40.
6

2

Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 1964–65 (2007) (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful
in fact).” (citations and footnote omitted)). The Court evaluates the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and accepts “all well-pleaded facts as true.” Jones, 188 F.3d at 324.
Pursuant to Rule 12(c), the movant must clearly establish that no material issue of fact remains to
be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Greenberg v. Gen.
Mills Fun Group, Inc., 478 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir.1973). The issue is whether the plaintiff is
entitled to offer evidence to support his claim, not whether he will ultimately prevail on the
merits. Great Plains Trust, 313 F.3d at 313 (citing Jones, 188 F.3d at 324).
As plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court is permitted to examine his complaint with
“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520, (1972). Plaintiff’s pleading is to be construed liberally. U.S. v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94
(5th Cir. 1996).
ANALYSIS
The FCRA imposes a duty upon consumer reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable
investigation into any information that a consumer disputes and that the agencies retain in his
file. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i; Pinner v. Schmidt; 805 F.2d 1258, 1262 (5th Cir. 1986). Specifically, if a
consumer directly or indirectly disputes the completeness or accuracy of any item of information
in his file, an agency must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the
disputed information is indeed inaccurate. 15U.S.C. § 1681i(1)(A). Within 30 days of notice of
the dispute, the agency must either record the current status of the disputed information or delete
the information if it is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. Id.; Cousins v. Trans Union Corp.,

3

246 F.3d 359, 367 n.11 (5th Cir. 2001). A negligent violation of this duty subjects the consumer
reporting agency to actual damages resulting from the violation, court costs, and reasonable
attorney’s fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o; Pinner, 805 F.2d at 1262. A willful violation subjects the
agency to punitive damages as well. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2); Pinner, 805 F.2d at 1262.
Defendant argues that because plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and not supported by
sufficient factual detail, defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings. However, in
Williams v. Credit Prot. Ass'n Trans Union, LLC, 2009 WL 3719407, *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 3,
2009), the district court faced factual allegations nearly identical to those made in this case and
the court found that the plaintiff had alleged facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6):
When Trans Union confirmed his suspicions by providing him
with copies of credit reports containing erroneous, inaccurate, and
fraudulent data regarding his personal, financial, and business
transactions, he alleges, he made numerous attempts to contact
Tans [sic] Union to rectify and resolve his concerns but to no avail.
[] He also alleges that Trans Union's continuous dissemination of
this inaccurate information led to a denial of credit, refinancing,
and opening of a checking account. [] Plaintiff's complaint thus
contains “some factual allegations” showing that he disputed the
accuracy of information retained by Trans Union in his file, that
Trans Union failed to conduct a reasonable investigation
concerning the disputed inaccuracy, that Trans Union failed to
correct the disputed inaccuracy, and that Plaintiff suffered damages
as a result. Under Twombly, “a complaint attacked by a 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.” 550
U.S. at 555. All it needs is “some factual allegation” showing an
entitlement to relief and providing “fair notice of the … grounds
on which the claim rests.” Id. at 556 n.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
To the extent of Plaintiff's § 1681i claim, he pleads enough facts
that, when viewed in the light most favorable to him, state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.
Id. at *4 (record citations omitted).

4

The Court finds the reasoning of the Williams court persuasive. Since plaintiff in this
case has similarly alleged that he attempted to dispute the accuracy of information retained by
defendant in his file, that defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation concerning the
disputed inaccuracy, that defendant failed to correct the disputed inaccuracy, and that plaintiff
suffered damages as a result, the Court finds that judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate at
this time.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is
DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, July 21, 2011.

___________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5