Croatto v. TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER. Defendant Trans Union LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Document No. #4 ) is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff David Croatto's claims against Defendant TransUnion Risk and Data Solution, Inc. are DISMISSED. (Signed by Judge David Hittner) Parties notified. (jww4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
June 05, 2024

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DAVID CROATTO,
Plaintiff,

v.
TRANSUNION RISK AND DATA
SOLUTION, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Civil Action No. H-24-1479

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Trans Union LLC's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Document No. 4). Having
considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court finds defendants'
motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Plaintiff
David Croatto ("Croatto"), proceeding pro se, filed a case in state court asserting
Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union") violated his privacy and disseminated false
information to the public. 1 Croatto asserts causes of action for defamation and

1

Croatto's complaint incorrectly named the Defendant as TransUnion Risk and
Data Solutions, inc. Defendant Trans Union LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint and Memorandum in Support, Document No. 4 at 1.

invasion of privacy as a result of information that appeared on Croatto's credit
report. Trans Union contends Croatto's allegations are based on Trans Union's credit
reporting and arise under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. Accordingly, on April
23, 2024, Trans Union removed the case to this Court, asserting federal question
jurisdiction. On April 30, 2024, Trans Union moved to dismiss Croatto's case,
asserting Croatto' s claims were fundamentally flawed and not in compliance with
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Eight ("Rule 8"). Croatto did not respond to Trans
Union's motion to dismiss.
II .. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more than ... 'labels
and conclusions.' "Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell At/.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "[t]he
'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff'" In re Katrina Canal Breeches Litig., 495 F.3d 191,205 (5th Cir.
2

2007) (quoting Martin K Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464,
467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
"Conversely, 'when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
•claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point
of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.' " Cuvillier
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).

III. .LAW & ANALYSlS
The Trans Union contends Croatto's claims fail because: (1) Trans Union is
not a Consumer Reporting Agency ("CRA") and therefore not subject to the FCRA;
(2) Croatto's state and common law claims are preempted by the FCRA; (3) Croatto
has failed to comply with Rule 8 and therefore fails to state a claim for which relief
max be granted. Croatto did not respond to the motion to dismiss. Failure to respond
is taken as a representation of no opposition. S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.4.
The purpose of the FCRA is to "require that consumer reporting agencies
adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit,
personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable
to the consumer ... " 15 U.S.C. §1681(b). A CRA is defined by the FCRA as "any
person which, for monetary fees ... regularly engages in whole or in part in the
practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or _other
3

information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third
parties[.]" Id. at § 168 la(f).
Here, Croatto alleges that Trans Union disseminated false information that
harmed his credit worthiness. Trans Union contends that Croatto' s claim arises from
alleged credit reporting and therefore arises under the FCRA. Trans Union further
contends they are not a CRA, and no consumer report was prepared by it as it relates
to Croatto. As such, Trans Union contends Croatto sued the wrong part and any
FCRA claim against Trans Union fails as a matter oflaw. Courts across the nation
have dismissed parties similar to-Trans Union, who were incorrectly sued under the
FCRA. See Greear v. Equifax, Inc., No. 13-11896, 2014 WL 1378777 (E.D. Mich.
Apr. 8, 2014) ( O'Meara, J.) ("Defendant Equifax, Inc., is not a consumer reporting
agency subject to the requirements of the FCRA."); Slice v. Choicedata Consumer
Servs., Inc., No. 04-cv-428, 2005 WL 2030690 at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 23, 2005)

(Varlan, J.) ("Equifax Inc. has not violated the FCRA as alleged because it is not a
'consumer reporting agency' and has not furnished or prepared a 'consumer report'
on the plaintiff."). Croatto did not respond to Trans Union's motion.to dismiss or
offer any evidence or counterargument that the FCRA should apply here.
Accordingly, Croatto' s claims arising from the FCRA fails.
Trans Union further contends that any state or common law claim asserted by
Croatto also fails because they are preempted by the FCRA. The FCRA prohibits
4

consumers from "bring[ing] any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation,
invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information
against any consumer reporting agency ... except as to false information furnished
with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer." 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e). See
Young v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs. Inc., 294 F. Supp. 3d 631, 638 (5th Cir. 2002)

(dismissing defamation claim based on credit reporting). Trans Union contends
nothing in Croatto's complaint alleges any willful conduct or malice on the part of
Trans Union. Trans Union further contends Croatto's complaint lacks any plain
statement of his claims, whether it be for the FCRA or state claims for defamation
or invasion of privacy. The Court construes all prose filings liberally. See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, even construing Croatto's complaint

liberally, it fails to meet the pleading standards set forth under Fed: R. Civ. P.-8(a)(2).
Further, Croatto did not respond or offer any evidence or argument to oppose the
dismissal of his claims. Therefore, the Court finds Croatto has failed to adequately
state a claim for which relief may be sought. Accordingly, the Court finds the
Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby

5

ORDERS that Defendant Trans Union LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs

Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Document No. 4) is GRANTED. The
Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff David Croatto's claims against Defendant

TransUnion Risk and Data Solution, Inc. are DISMISSED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this~ day of June, 2024.

DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge

6