Davis v. Equifax Credit Information Services Inc et al
Filing
24
ORDER AND OPINION granting 10 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice for Failure to State a Claim as to defendant Transunion. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 4/10/2012.(asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Frank Davis, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc.,
Transunion, LLC, and Experian,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 5:11-cv-3086-MBS
ORDER AND OPINION
On or about September 29, 2011, Plaintiff Frank Davis, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against
Defendants Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., Transunion, LLC (“Defendant
Transunion”), and Experian in the Court of Common Pleas in Orangeburg County, South
Carolina. On November 10, 2011, the case was removed to this court. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1681(n) and (o), and
committed libel by publishing false information about Plaintiff’s credit. Defendant Transunion’s
motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion for a more definite statement is currently before
the court.
In his complaint, Plaintiff states that Defendants are credit reporting agencies whose
primary purpose is to supply accurate information regarding the creditworthiness of individuals
to potential lenders. Plaintiff’s first cause of action is for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ files on Plaintiff contained numerous errors,
misinformation, defamatory information, and false information regarding the creditworthiness of
Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants comingled Plaintiff’s credit information
with someone else’s credit history in their representation of Plaintiff’s credit history. Plaintiff
also alleges that Defendants willfully failed to make changes to Plaintiff’s credit report after
being informed of the errors. Plaintiff contends that due to the violations above, Plaintiff paid
inflated interested rates; has been denied credit; and has suffered a diminished lifestyle.
Plaintiff’s second cause of action is for libel. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants published false
information about Plaintiff’s credit to third party lenders with reckless disregard for the truth.
On November 17, 2011, Defendant Transunion filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(e). Defendant Transunion argues that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis that Plaintiff does not allege any factual basis to
support his claims. Defendant Transunion states that Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts
against Transunion such as what accounts Plaintiff is disputing in his credit file and what is
allegedly inaccurate about those accounts.
Defendant Transunion argues that Plaintiff’s
generalized allegations as to all Defendants are insufficient to notify Defendant Transunion as to
the basis of the claim asserted against it specifically. Furthermore, Defendant Transunion
contends that Plaintiff’s libel claim must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because
Plaintiff does not allege what specific false information Transunion published. To date, Plaintiff
has not responded to Defendant Transunion’s motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, Defendant
Transunion’s motion is unopposed pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.06 DSC.
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 556,
570 (2007)). 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.
2
Id. The court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and construe these facts in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the claim. See Nemet Chevrolet,
Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions,
elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement fail to
constitute well-pleaded facts for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes. See id. at 255. To survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must give the defendant “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff failed to allege what specific errors and what false information
Defendant Transunion published in regard to Plaintiff’s credit file. Although Plaintiff states that
Defendants commingled Plaintiff’s credit history with someone else’s credit history, each
Defendant maintains a separate credit file on Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not state which specific
Defendant commingled his credit history with someone else’s credit history. Even if the court
were to assume that Plaintiff was alleging that each Defendant commingled Plaintiff’s credit
history, Plaintiff does not specify who Defendant’s credit history was commingled with, which
would otherwise permit Defendant Transunion to respond to the claim.
Plaintiff failed to
provide Defendant Transunion with fair notice of the claims against it, rendering it impossible
for Defendant Transunion to adequately respond to the claims. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not
responded to Defendant Transunion’s motion to dismiss, which was filed over four months ago,
and has not moved to amend the complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies. Accordingly, the
court grants Defendant Transunion’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s complaint as to Defendant
Transunion is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Chief United States District Judge
April 10, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
4
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?