LEE v. CHASE BANK USA
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 4/2/2012. (TH, ) Modified on 4/4/2012 (TH). (Main Document 7 replaced on 4/4/2012) (TH).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHAUNTELLE LEE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
No. 11-5198 (JBS/KMW)
v.
CHASE BANK USA,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s unopposed
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.
[Docket Item 4.]
1.
The Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Burlington County
Superior Court, claiming that Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and that Defendant committed fraud.
removed the matter to this Court.
2.
Defendant
[Docket Item 1.]
The Complaint and attached affidavit contain very few
concrete factual allegations.
The only fact clearly alleged is
that Plaintiff’s credit report contains false information, but
does not explain the nature of the falsity.
There are other
references to facts and events, but they are difficult to
decipher statements about the contract between Plaintiff and
Defendant.
For example, Plaintiff alleges that “Nowhere in the
alleged agreement does it said that Plaintiff would be providing
the value (through the contract entered in with defendant) to
fund this alleged line of credit revolving account(s).”
10.
Compl. ¶
Among other basic information, the Complaint does not
clearly set forth whether and in what amount money was lent to
Plaintiff, or whether and what amount Plaintiff paid back.
3.
The Complaint must be dismissed for three reasons.
First, in order to give Defendant fair notice of the conduct
alleged to constitute violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and fraud, the Complaint must plead those facts about the conduct
of Defendant giving rise to liability.
See Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
These factual allegations
must go beyond legal boilerplate and present a plausible basis
for relief.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1951 (2009).
As to both counts, the Complaint fails to set forth the minimally
necessary information to understand the basis for Plaintiff’s
claims.
At a minimum, to plead a plausible claim, Plaintiff must
explain what contract was entered into, whether and in what
amount money want lent to her, and if money was given to
Plaintiff and not paid back in full, why Plaintiff was not
obligated to pay the money back.
4.
Second, the private right of action under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act is limited to § 1681s–2(b), and that
liability is only triggered if Defendant received notice of the
dispute from a consumer reporting agency, which Plaintiff has not
alleged.
See Evantash v. G.E. Capital Mortg. Services, Inc.,
2
CIV.A. 02-CV-1188, 2003 WL 22844198 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2003).
5.
Third, Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires that, “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must
state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or
mistake.”
In addition to failing to set forth with sufficient
clarity her arguments about the nature of the contract, Plaintiff
fails to explain what conduct on the part of Defendant she
alleges constituted fraud.
In particular, Plaintiff must
identify the particular misrepresentation or omission that
Plaintiff claims constitutes the fraud.
6.
Because the Complaint will be dismissed for failure to
plead facts with sufficient clarity and specificity, Plaintiff
will be given the opportunity to amend the Complaint to comply
with Rules 8 and 9, Fed. R. Civ. P.
Plaintiff will have twenty-
one days to file a motion to amend the complaint, and if no
motion to amend is timely filed this dismissal will automatically
become dismissal with prejudice.
The accompanying Order will be
entered.
7.
The Clerk will close this case upon the docket.
April 2, 2012
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
3
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?