SMITH v. TRANSUNION LLC

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN M. GALLAGHER ON 6/5/24. 6/5/24 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JILLISA SMITH,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
TRANSUNION LLC,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-CV-2253

MEMORANDUM
GALLAGHER, J.

JUNE 5, 2024

Plaintiff Jillisa Smith initiated this civil action by filing a pro se Complaint against
TransUnion LLC for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x
(“FCRA”). 1 Smith seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the
Court will grant Smith leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the Complaint.
I.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 2
Smith claims that she reviewed her consumer credit report and found multiple

inaccuracies being reported by TransUnion in regard to multiple accounts. (Compl. at 6.) On or
about April 8, 2024, she sent TransUnion a notice disputing the information in her report, which
she asserts TransUnion received on April 17, 2024. (Id.) As of May 20, 2024, she had not
received correspondence from TransUnion nor has TransUnion requested additional time to
investigate her dispute. (Id. at 7.) She asserts that TransUnion failed to respond to her disputes
for more than thirty days after receiving them. (Id. at 3.)

1

Smith’s Complaint consists of the Court’s form complaint available for use by pro se
litigants as well as a typewritten complaint. The Court considers the entire submission to
constitute the Complaint in this case.
2

The factual allegations are taken from Smith’s Complaint. (ECF No. 2.) The Court
adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system.

Smith asserts also that on April 17, 2024 she disputed inaccurate information in her
SANTANDER consumer account, her “FSTPROGRESS” account, her “TBOM/FORTIVA”
account, her “AMER CR ACPT” account, her “DPT ED/AIDV” account, her “US DEPT ED”
account, and her “I C SYSTEM” account, and requested a determination within five days. 3 (Id.
at 7-8.) She claims “it is evident that TransUnion failed to complete an investigation with
regards to the completeness and/or accuracy” of these accounts, and “potentially led users
viewing the report to be confused as to the payment behavior and/or character of the Plaintiff.”
(Id. at 8.) As of May 20, 2024, she had not received correspondence from TransUnion about
these accounts either, and her account “is not being reported accurately.” (Id. at 9.)
Smith claims her credit worthiness has been negatively impacted by TransUnion and
claims her report was disseminated multiple times, resulting in her being denied credit by
“BRCLYSBANKDE” on or about August 13, 2022. (Id. at 10.) She seeks money damages for
violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i(a). (Id. at 10-13.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Smith appears to be incapable of paying the filing fees to commence this action,

the Court will grant her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. The
Court must determine whether the Complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotations omitted). ‘“At this early stage of the litigation,’ ‘[the Court will] accept the

3

Smith repeats the allegation about the “DPT ED/AIDV” account four times and the
allegation about the “I C SYSTEM” account two times. (Compl. at 7-8.) It is unclear whether
she is referring to multiple accounts at the same institution, multiple inaccuracies in one account,
or something else.

2

facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,’ ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the
plaintiff’s] favor,’ and ‘ask only whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts
sufficient to state a plausible [] claim.’” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir.
2021) (quoting Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory
allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The Court construes the allegations of the pro se Complaint liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8
F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021). However, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their
complaints to support a claim.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). An unrepresented litigant
“cannot flout procedural rules - they must abide by the same rules that apply to all other
litigants.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
III.

DISCUSSION
The FCRA was enacted “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency

in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S.
47, 52 (2007); see also SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355, 357 (3d Cir.
2011) (noting that the FCRA is intended “to protect consumers from the transmission of
inaccurate information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that utilize
accurate, relevant and current information in a confidential and responsible manner” (quoting
Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 (3d Cir. 2010))). In the language of the FCRA,
consumer reporting agencies “collect consumer credit data from ‘furnishers,’ such as banks and
other lenders, and organize that material into individualized credit reports, which are used by

3

commercial entities to assess a particular consumer’s creditworthiness.” Seamans v. Temple
Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 860 (3d Cir. 2014). 4
Consumer reporting agencies are required to “follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report
relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). To state a plausible claim under this section, a plaintiff must
plead the following elements: (1) inaccurate information was included in a credit report; (2) the
inaccuracy was due to the consumer reporting agency’s failure to follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) the consumer suffered an injury; and (4) that injury
was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. Cortez, 617 F.3d at 708 (citing Philbin v.
Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957, 963 (3d Cir. 1996)).
The FCRA also “confers on a consumer a right to have the negative information on his or
her credit report investigated for accuracy.” Klotz v. Trans Union, LLC, 246 F.R.D. 208, 211
(E.D. Pa. 2007). In that regard, if a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of
information contained in her file, the credit reporting agency must “conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the
current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with
paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency
receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
The FCRA also requires “[b]efore the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the

4

The FCRA provides for civil liability for noncompliance due to willfulness and
negligence. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681n (creating civil liability for willful noncompliance with any
portion of the Act); id. § 1681o (creating civil liability for negligent noncompliance with any
portion of the Act). A willful violation of the FCRA requires the additional showing that the
defendant acted knowingly or with reckless disregard of the statute’s terms. Seamans, 744 F.3d
at 868 (3d Cir. 2014).
4

date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer . . .
in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any
person who provided any item of information in dispute.” Id., § 1681i(a)(2)(A). During the 30day period, the consumer reporting agency “shall review and consider all relevant information
submitted by the consumer,” id., § 1681i(a)(4), and if the item of information is found to be
inaccurate or incomplete, or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall “promptly
deleted that item of information” and “notify the furnisher of that information that the
information has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.” Id., § 1681i(a)(5)(A).
The agency shall also “provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation
under this subsection not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation.”
Id., § 1681i(a)(6)(A).
To establish that a consumer reporting agency is liable for failing to reinvestigate a
dispute under the FCRA, the consumer must establish that the consumer reporting agency had a
duty to do so, and that it would have discovered a discrepancy had it undertaken a reasonable
investigation. Cortez, 617 F.3d at 713 (citing Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 226
(3d Cir. 1997)). Accordingly, to proceed under either § 1681e(b) or § 1681i(a), a plaintiff must
show that the reported information was in fact inaccurate. Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, 43 F.4th
331, 342-43 (3d Cir. 2022); see also Angino v. Trans Union LLC, 784 F. App’x 67, 69 (3d Cir.
2019) (“To prevail under [a § 1681e(b) claim or a § 1681i(a) claim], the . . . [plaintiffs] must
show that their credit report contains inaccurate information.”); Holland v. Trans Union LLC,
574 F. Supp. 3d 292, 297-98 (E.D. Pa. 2021). “[I]nformation that is technically accurate but
materially misleading is sufficient to trigger § 1681i(a), just as it is for § 1681e(b).” Bibbs, 43
F.4th at 345 (citing Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d 749, 756 (9th Cir. 2018)).

5

Additionally, the consumer reporting agency “may terminate a reinvestigation of information
disputed by a consumer . . . if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer
is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to provide sufficient
information to investigate the disputed information.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A).
Smith asserts that TransUnion failed to fulfill its responsibilities under § 1681e(b) and §
1681i(a) with regard to several of her consumer credit accounts. However, the allegations of
inaccuracies in the Complaint are undeveloped. Smith contends that she discovered inaccuracies
in the report of her various accounts, but she does not provide any factual specificity about these
instances of inaccurate information. Smith’s claims are not plausible because she has not alleged
sufficient facts regarding the nature of the inaccuracies. See Cook v. TransUnion, No. 23-1146,
2024 WL 128204, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2024) (dismissing FCRA claims where the plaintiff
failed to allege sufficient facts regarding the inaccurate information); Shastri v. Experian Info.
Sols., Inc., No. 21-10085, 2021 WL 2896001, at *2 (D.N.J. July 9, 2021) (granting Experian’s
motion to dismiss because “despite vague references to ‘inaccurate information of Bankruptcy’”
plaintiff never clearly disputed the accuracy of the information included on the credit report);
Covington v. Equifax Info. Servs., Inc., No. 21-815640, 2020 WL 1921954, at *6 (D.N.J. Apr.
20, 2020) (finding that permitting proposed amended complaint would be futile where plaintiff
failed to state factually how, why or in what manner any information plaintiff disputed was
inaccurate); Regina the First for Guyton v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 18-2534, 2018 WL
3122328, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2018) (dismissing complaint for failure to set forth facts
regarding what inaccurate information was included in credit report). Accord Hill v. Genesis
F.S. Card Servs., No. 21-4232, 2021 WL 5865610, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2021) (dismissing

6

FCRA claim on statutory screening where the plaintiff did not, inter alia, “make any allegations
regarding the specific nature of the false and inaccurate information”).
Furthermore, while Smith alleges that TransUnion failed to comply with the statutory
requirements of § 1681e(b) and § 1681i(a), her allegations concerning its actions are conclusory.
Because conclusory allegations that merely recite the elements of a cause of action are not
sufficient to allege a plausible claim for purposes of statutory screening, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678 (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice”), Smith’s claims based on violations of § 1681e(b) and § 1681i(a)
cannot, therefore, proceed as pled. See Schiano v. HomEq Servicing Corp. & HomEq Servicing,
832 F. App’x 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2020) (allegations that defendant failed to “‘fully and properly
investigate’ the matter” were conclusory and did not state a claim); Anyaegbunam v. ARS Acct.
Resol., LLC, No. 21-13409, 2022 WL 1558474, at *3 (D.N.J. May 17, 2022) (dismissing
complaint that merely set forth threadbare allegations and a formulaic recitation of the statutory
elements of plaintiff’s FCRA claims).
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Smith’s Complaint without prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Smith will be given leave
to file an amended complaint if she is capable of correcting the defects the Court has noted in her
claims. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ John M. Gallagher
JOHN M. GALLAGHER, J.

7