Clark v. Transunion et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 20 Motion for Joinder --- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, the motions to dismiss are granted, the complaint is dismissed without prejud ice as to both Equifax and Experian, and Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. In order for this action to continue, PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30, 2013. The amended complaint must be caption ed, Amended Complaint, and shall bear the same docket number as this Order. For the convenience of Plaintiff, a copy of Instructions on How to Amend Your Complaint is attached. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time all owed, the complaint will be dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to hold the closing of this case in abeyance pending Plaintiff's compliance with this Order and to mail a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order and Instructions on How to Amend Your Complaint to pro se plaintiff. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 8/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement) (Irizarry, Dora)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------x
DWAYNE CLARK, pro se,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
EXPERIAN,
and
EQUIFAX
CREDIT:
SERVICES,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------x

SUMMARY ORDER
13-CV-02418 (DLI)(RLM)

DORA L. IRIZARRY, U.S. District Judge:
In this action, pro se plaintiff Dwayne Clark (“Plaintiff”) asserts claims against Equifax
Information Services LLC (“Equifax”) and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian,”
and collectively with Equifax, “Defendants”) pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Experian has moved to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Docket Entry No. 10.) Equifax separately requests to join in Experian’s motion to dismiss on
the basis that Plaintiff’s allegations against it suffer from the same deficiencies identified in
Experian’s motion. (Docket Entry No. 20.) For the reasons stated below, Experian’s motion to
dismiss is granted, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff is granted leave to
file an amended complaint with the Court by no later than September 30, 2013.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing the complaint, the Court is mindful that “[a] document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,

1

94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

If a liberal reading of the complaint

“gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” this Court must grant leave to amend
the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).
Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Pleadings are to
give the defendant “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Dura
Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957), overruled in part on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
“The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it
demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “A pleading that offers
‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).
Here, the complaint provides only boilerplate assertions that Defendants committed
“violations” and “failed to comply with the requirements” of the FCRA (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11, 14-15,
17-18), which are conclusory to the extreme and do not state a plausible claim for relief.

See

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
For instance, the complaint fails to identify with specificity any errors or inaccuracies in
Plaintiff’s credit file or otherwise set forth factual allegations concerning Defendants’ wrongful
conduct.

Because Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim under the FCRA,

the complaint is dismissed as to all Defendants. In light of his pro se status, however, Plaintiff is

2

granted leave to file an amended complaint setting forth sufficient factual allegations to support a
plausible claim under the FCRA.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is granted, the complaint is dismissed
without prejudice as to both Equifax and Experian, and Plaintiff is granted leave to file an
amended complaint.

In order for this action to continue, PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30, 2013. The amended complaint
must be captioned, “Amended Complaint,” and shall bear the same docket number as this Order.
For the convenience of Plaintiff, a copy of instructions on “How to Amend Your Complaint” is
attached.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time allowed, the complaint will be

dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is
directed to hold the closing of this case in abeyance pending Plaintiff’s compliance with this
Order.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
August 28, 2013
_______________/s/_____________
DORA L. IRIZARRY
United States District Judge

3