Lossia, Jr. et al vs. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.
Filing
9
ORDER granting 5 defendant's Motion to Dismiss federal claim without prejudice. Amended complaint due 11/23/15. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES LOSSIA, JR. and
ALEXANDRA PLAPCIANU,
individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 15-12540
vs.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC.,
a/k/a FLAGSTAR BANK,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS FEDERAL CLAIM WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DOC. 5]
Plaintiffs James Lossia Jr. and Alexandra Plapcianu filed this proposed class
action lawsuit against Flagstar Bank alleging five state law claims and one federal claim.
The federal claim is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et
seq., and alleges that “Flagstar bank frequently furnishes inaccurate information to
consumer reporting agencies by reporting that customers did not have sufficient funds
in their checking accounts when the customers did in fact have sufficient funds.”
Complaint ¶ 126. The matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss
plaintiffs’ complaint. Oral argument was held on October 21, 2015. For the reasons
stated below, defendant’s motion to dismiss the federal claim is GRANTED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In March 2015, plaintiffs filed a state court lawsuit in small claims court alleging
that Flagstar Bank “deliberately manipulated debits” in plaintiffs’ checking account.
Plaintiffs dismissed their state court lawsuit and filed the present six-count class action
lawsuit in federal court on July 17, 2015. The only federal law claim alleges a violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. The gist of
the FCRA claim is that Flagstar Bank furnished false information to consumer reporting
agencies as a result of insufficient fund (“NSF”) fees assessed by Flagstar. Plaintiffs
allege that Flagstar knew this information was false, and “failed to correct and/or update
the false information provided to consumer reporting agencies in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
1681s-2.”
The five state law claims - breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of
Michigan Consumer Protection Laws - focus on the manipulation and re-ordering of
electronic check transactions. Defendant refers to another class action lawsuit, filed by
different plaintiffs, pending in Oakland County Circuit Court1 which focuses on Flagstar
Bank’s alleged manipulation of customers’ account balances when engaged in point of
sale (POS) transactions using debit cards or ATM cards. Defendant argues that both
lawsuits cover the same subject matter - namely Flagstar’s overdraft fees - so the
plaintiffs’ federal case should be dismissed and should be brought as part of the similar
action pending in state court.
1
The OCCC case is Charlene Faris v. Flagstar Bank, Case No. 15-145287-CZ, filed
January 30, 2015.
2
ANALYSIS
I. Dismissal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) allows the Court to make an assessment as to whether the plaintiff
has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Under the Supreme Court’s
articulation of the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 554-56 (2007), the Court must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff,
accept the allegations of the complaint as true, and determine whether plaintiff’s factual
allegations present plausible claims. “’[N]aked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement’” are insufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 570).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s pleading for relief must provide
“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” D’Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 383 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (other citations omitted). Even though the complaint need
not contain “detailed” factual allegations, its “factual allegations must be enough to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in
the complaint are true.” New Albany Tractor, Inc. v. Louisville Tractor, Inc., 650 F.3d
1046, 1051 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
II. Fair Credit Reporting Act
The Fair Credit Reporting Act exists “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting,
promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins.
Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007). In order to prevent furnishers of information from
providing inaccurate consumer-credit information, 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2 creates two
3
obligations. First, a furnisher has a duty to provide accurate information to consumer
reporting agencies. §1681s-2(a). Second, a furnisher must conduct investigations and
promptly report and correct inaccurate information in response to consumer disputes,
but only when it receives notice from a consumer reporting agency about a particular
dispute. §1681s-2(b); 1681i(a)(2).
A consumer does not have a private right of action to enforce a furnisher’s duties
under §1681s-2(a). §1681s-2(d); see also Yaldu v. Bank of Am. Corp., 700 F.Supp.2d
832, 842 (E.D. Mich. 2010)(no private right of action exists under subsection (a)). A
consumer plaintiff’s right to sue furnishers extends only to those obligations under
§1681s-2(b), i.e., the furnisher’s duty to make a reasonable inquiry into an alleged
dispute after receiving notice of the dispute from a consumer reporting agency. See
Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615-16 (6th Cir. 2012). Defendant
alleges that plaintiffs’ FCRA claim must nevertheless be dismissed because plaintiffs
have failed to allege that Flagstar received notice of the dispute from a consumer
reporting agency.
Defendant is correct that plaintiffs’ complaint does not assert that a credit
reporting agency notified Flagstar of a dispute. In their response to the motion to
dismiss, plaintiffs attempt to add additional facts. Specifically, plaintiff Lossia contacted
Chexsystems, a credit reporting agency, on July 16, 2015, by telephone and in writing,
disputing the information in the credit report and asking for an investigation. In support
of this assertion, plaintiffs attach Lossia’s Affidavit. Lossia acknowledges he never
received a response from Chexxystems, and made a second written dispute on
September 17, 2015.
4
The district court recognizes that whether statutory notice was actually given by a
credit reporting agency is generally outside the plaintiff’s knowledge at the pleading
stage. Khalil v. Transunion, 2008 WL 2782912, *8 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “The FCRA does
not require a CRA to tell a consumer when it notifies a furnisher of information about the
consumer’s dispute. As a result, a consumer may not, at the time of filing a complaint,
be in a position to allege that notification.” Id. (quoting Lang v. TCF Nat. Bank, 249 Fed.
Appx. 464, 466 (7th Cir. 2007). Courts have therefore permitted plaintiffs to amend their
complaints with information learned during discovery. See id.; Hawes v. Bank of
America, 2013 WL 4053143 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (additional evidence procured during
discovery indicated that defendant initiated a reinvestigation at the request of the credit
reporting agencies; court therefore permitted amendment of complaint).
The court ordered defendant to provide basic initial disclosures within fourteen
days of the hearing. Based on the information provided, plaintiffs may chose to file an
amended complaint on or before November 23, 2015, stating a claim under the FCRA,
in compliance with Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, plaintiffs’ Fair Credit Reporting Act claim is dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before November 23,
2015.
5
Dated: November 4, 2015
S/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
November 4, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?