Opinion
No. 00 C 50356
August 16, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Raymond Gaudreau, acting pro se, has filed a one-count complaint against Trans Union pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 168lp, and venue is proper in this district and division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Currently pending before the court is Trans Union's motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
II. Preliminary Matters
Trans Union has attached court documents to its Rule 12(c) motion and argues this court can take judicial notice of such matters of public record without converting its motion into one for summary judgment. Trans Union's recitation of the law is correct. See Henson v. CSC Credit Serv., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994). As the following discussion will show, the court could also treat Trans Union's motion as raising the issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction, making Rule 12(b)(1) the proper vehicle. In either case, the court will take judicial notice of the court documents attached to Trans Union's motion without converting it into one for summary judgment.
III. Facts
Gaudreau alleges Trans Union is a licensed consumer credit bureau. (Compl. ¶ 6) On or about February 11, 2000, he received a credit report containing items alleging debts he did not believe legitimately existed. (Id. ¶ 7) By letter dated February 18, 2000, he told Trans Union that certain items appearing on his credit report appeared to be erroneous, and requested that they be verified within thirty days or removed. (Id. ¶ 8) In an unsigned letter dated March 3, 2000, Trans Union stated that the disputed items were "verified as accurate," but provided no other documentation or verification. (Id. ¶ 9) Gaudreau responded in writing, stating that Trans Union's verification was inadequate and did not comply with the FCRA. (Id. ¶ 10) Trans Union again sent Gaudreau a letter explaining that its records showed the disputed items had been previously investigated and were found to be accurately reported. (Compl. Exh. 4) The letter also explained how Gaudreau could add a consumer statement to his credit file, setting forth the nature of his dispute. (Id.) Gaudreau alleges Trans Union is in violation of § 1691i of the FCRA due to its failure to "substantially verify" the disputed items within thirty days and its subsequent refusal to remove those items from his credit report. (Compl. ¶ 12)
IV. Analysis
Resolution of the case is appropriate only if it appears beyond doubt that Gaudreau cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief. See Forseth v. Village of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2000). The complaint may not be dismissed unless it is impossible to prevail under any set of facts that could prove consistent with the allegations. Id.
It is clear Gaudreau's claim centers on Trans Union's alleged failure to adequately verify the debts at issue. He is not alleging that Trans Union breached its duty to reinvestigate because it failed to go beyond the court documents to determine whether the source was unreliable.Compare with Henson, 29 F.3d at 287 (whether a credit agency has a duty to go beyond the original source, such as a Judgment Docket, will depend on whether the consumer has alerted the agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or the agency knew or should have known of any unreliability). He is not alleging that adequate documentation is lacking to support Trans Union's credit report.
In fact, the court documents supplied to this court support the existence of the three federal tax liens and bankruptcy which appear on Gaudreau's credit report. (Def. Exhs. C-G) Gaudreau has produced nothing contesting the accuracy of the credit report. Thus, the court finds Trans Union's credit report is accurate. This leads to the next, and final, step of the analysis. Because the credit report is accurate, Gaudreau has not suffered any injury and, therefore, has no standing to sue under the FCRA. See Crabill v. Trans Union. LLC, No. 00-2078, ___ F.3d ___, 2001 WL 856573, at *2-3 (7th Cir. July 30, 2001) (without a causal relationship between a violation of the FCRA and the loss of credit, plaintiff did not suffer any injury, resulting in a lack of standing under Article III);see generally Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. United States, 529 U.S. 765, 771 (2000) (plaintiff must meet three requirements to establish Article III standing, one of which is injury in fact).
This is implicit within FCRA's statutory scheme. A claim under § 1681i is properly raised only when a credit report contains a factual deficiency or error that could have been remedied by reinvestigation.Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1160 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Williams v. Colonial Bank, 826 F. Supp. 415, 418 (M.D.Ala. 1993) (no duty to reinvestigate because no factual deficiencies in credit report), aff'd, 29 F.3d 641 (11th Cir. 1994) (unpublished). When there have been no inaccuracies reported in a consumer file, there is no need for any additional investigation. Cahlin, 936 F.2d at 1160. The legislative purpose behind the FCRA was to protect consumers from inaccurate or arbitrary information in a credit report that is used in a myriad of ways. 15 U.S.C. § 1681; Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258, 1261 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022(1987). Gaudreau's claim uses the statute as a sword, not a shield, which flies in the face of its legislative purpose.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Trans Union's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Trans Union's request for costs is denied. Gaudreau's motion to strike Trans Union's reply brief is also denied. Its brief was properly responsive to his response brief. Gaudreau's request for sanctions under Rule 11 is also denied. This cause is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Trans Union's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. Gaudreau's motion to strike Trans Unions's reply brief is denied. This cause is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
All prior orders in this case are now final and appealable.