Karno v. Ford Motor Credit et al

Filing 52

ORDER & REASONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Experian's 23 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint to: (1) address the specific provisions of the FCRA that she alleges Experian violated and (2) state with particularity the specific facts supporting the alleged violations. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 11/22/2024. (pp)(cc: Robin Karno)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBIN KARNO

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 23-7117

FORD MOTOR CREDIT ET AL

SECTION “L” (4)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendant
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”). R. Doc. 23. Plaintiff Robin Karno, acting pro
se, opposes the motion. R. Doc. 48. Considering the briefing and applicable law, the Court now
rules as follows.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant Ford Motor Credit to challenge a lien placed
on her vehicle and other various debt collector tactics. 1 R. Doc. 1 at 1-7. Plaintiff has also sued
various credit reporting agencies, including Defendant Experian, for reporting on information
related to this lien, which she alleges is inaccurate. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff asserts that the reporting of
this “negative” information violates “state consumer protection laws and Fair Credit Reporting laws
of the State” and thus should be removed from the credit reports generated by each of these
Defendants. Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff requests damages for any harm to her creditworthiness and
other potential economic injuries caused by the purportedly inaccurate reporting. Id.
II.

PRESENT MOTION

Defendant Experian moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to

The Court notes that the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are not clearly stated in the Complaint. To the extent
this summary misstates her position, the Plaintiff is instructed to address any such discrepancy in the Amended
Complaint ordered by the Court below.
1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). R. Doc. 23. Experian notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to
identify any particular sections of the Federal Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) or any other state/federal
law that Experian allegedly violated. Id. at 3-4. Moreover, Experian avers that the Complaint lacks any
facts that might support these alleged violations. Id. Experian thus argues that dismissal is warranted
because Plaintiff’s claims fail to meet the 12(b)(6) standards set forth in Twombly and Iqbal. Id.
In the alternative, Experian requests an order compelling Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to
provide a more definitive statement of her claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Id.
at 4-5. Experian contends that it cannot fully and adequately understand what Plaintiff’s claims are or
the factual bases for each of the claims without making assumptions about the allegations contained in
the Complaint. Id.
Plaintiff opposes and has listed the specific provision of the FCRA that she alleges Experian
violated. R. Doc. 48 at 3-4. First, Plaintiff states that Experian failed to conduct a reasonable
investigation after receiving notice of a dispute regarding the accuracy of information contained in
a consumer’s credit report in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a). Id. at 3-4. Second, Plaintiff states
that Experian willfully or negligently failed to comply with its obligations under the FCRA in
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and § 1681o. Id. at 4. Third, Plaintiff states that Experian’s failure
to correct these inaccuracies caused significant harm including increased interest rates, denial of
credit opportunities, and loss of employment, which she claims are compensable under the FCRA.
Id.
III.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Here, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Courts have a “duty to construe pro se [filings] liberally so
that a litigant will not suffer simply because he did not attend law school or find a suitable attorney.”
United States v. Ayika, 554 F. App’x 302, 308 (5th Cir. 2014). Further, “a pro se plaintiff ordinarily should

2

be given ‘every opportunity’ to state a possible claim for relief.” Muthukumar v. Univ. of Tex. at Dallas,
No. 10-115, 2010 WL 5287530, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2010) (quoting Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561
F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1998)). “Thus, before a court dismisses a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim, a pro se plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend.” Id. However, courts
“still require pro se parties to fundamentally abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” E.E.O.C.
v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014). “Pro se litigants must properly plead sufficient facts
that, when liberally construed, state a plausible claim to relief.” Id.
The Court agrees with Experian that Plaintiff’s Complaint is not sufficiently clear to state a
claim. Plaintiff has failed to allege what specific provisions of law that Experian has violated and does
not provide any particular facts that support such violations in her Complaint. R. Doc. 1 at 7-8. However,
the Court will not dismiss the case on this basis. As outlined in her Opposition, the Plaintiff has identified
provisions of the FCRA that she claims Experian violated. R. Doc. 48 at 3-4. Accordingly, the Court will
give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend and incorporate these allegations in her Complaint. See
Muthukumar, 2010 WL 5287530, at *2. The Plaintiff must also sufficiently state with particularity the
facts that provide a basis for each of the alleged FCRA violations. If Plaintiff fails to adequately
incorporate the specific provisions of the FCRA that Experian allegedly violated in an Amended
Complaint, the Court will be forced to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Experian’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint to: (1) address the specific provisions of the FCRA that she
alleges Experian violated and (2) state with particularity the specific facts supporting the alleged
violations.

3

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of November, 2024.

United States District Judge

cc: Robin Karno
41133 River Road
Ponchatoula, LA 70454

4