Williams et al v. CitiMortgage Inc et al
Filing
90
ORDER granting 72 defendants Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union LLC's Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims of Willful Violations of the FCRA (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 4/2/2014. (ks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, and
JERI WILLIAMS, on behalf of
themselves and a class of
similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC,
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., and
TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-13-354-M
ORDER
Before the Court is defendants Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union LLC’s (“CRA Defendants”) Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Claims of Willful Violations of the FCRA, filed November 8, 2013. On December 20, 2013,
plaintiffs filed their response, and on January 21, 2014, the CRA Defendants filed their reply.
I.
Introduction
Plaintiffs bring a two-count putative class action complaint under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., against CitiMortgage, a furnisher of information, and the
CRA Defendants, three credit reporting agencies. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint
contains one count against CitiMortgage (Count I) and one count against the CRA Defendants
(Count II). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the CRA Defendants move this
Court to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims that they willfully violated the FCRA.
II.
Standard for Dismissal
Regarding the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the United States Supreme Court has held:
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that
are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the
line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Further,
“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 679 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, “[a] pleading that offers labels
and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does
a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. at
678 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Finally, “[a] court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint presumes all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and construes them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
III.
Discussion
The CRA Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ claims that they willfully violated the FCRA
should be dismissed because plaintiffs’ allegations are conclusory. For purposes of the FCRA,
[a] “willful” violation is either an intentional violation or a violation
committed by an agency in reckless disregard of its duties under the
FCRA. Recklessness is measured by an objective standard: action
2
entailing an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so
obvious that it should be known.
Llewellyn, 711 F.3d at 1183 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Having carefully reviewed plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint, the Court finds
that plaintiffs have not set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for willful violation of
the FCRA. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not set forth sufficient factual
allegations that allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the CRA Defendants
intentionally violated the FCRA or that the CRA Defendants violated the FCRA in reckless
disregard of their duties.
Although plaintiffs assert in their response that recklessness can be
established through a credit report agency’s respective policies and internal procedures and based
upon improper investigation procedures, the First Amended Class Action Complaint does not
contain any allegations regarding the CRA Defendants’ policies, internal procedures, or
investigation procedures. Additionally, the First Amended Class Action Complaint does not contain
any allegations regarding repetitive or systematic violations of the FCRA by the CRA Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ claims of willful violations of the FCRA against the
CRA Defendants should be dismissed.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the CRA Defendants’ Joint Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims of Willful Violations of the FCRA [docket no. 72] and DISMISSES
plaintiffs’ claims of willful violations of the FCRA against the CRA Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2014.
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?