Opinion
21-CV-6989 (LTS)
02-07-2022
ONTIA VIVERETTE, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN, Defendant.
ORDER TO AMEND
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Onita Viverette, of the Bronx, New York, filed this pro se action. She sues Experian, a credit reporting agency, alleging that Experian violated her rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). By order dated February 2, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest, ” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits -to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, ” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible - not merely possible - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action using the Court's general complaint form, and she invokes the Court's federal question jurisdiction. In the section which asks Plaintiff which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff writes, “I have been violated under the Fair Credit Report Act. 15 USC Chapter 41.” (ECF No. 2 at 2.) In her statement of claim, Plaintiff alleges the following:
I was violated by Experian under the following laws: 15 USC 1681b(a)(2), 15 USC 1681(a)(4), 15 USC 1681 (a)(1), 15 USC 6802a, 15 USC 6802b, 15 USC 1681a(b), 15 USC 1681d(d)(4), 15 USC 1681e(b), 15 USC 1681i(a)(5), 15 USC 1681a (Exclusions), 18 USC 242, and Identity theft. I have been affected
financially, emotionally, and under extreme stress due to Experian violating me as a consumer as defined by 15 USC 1693a(3).(Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to have Experian “correct the fraud the[y] inserted on my consumer report and $275,000 in monetary damages.” (Id. at 6.)
DISCUSSION
Congress enacted the FCRA to ensure that consumer reporting agencies follow fair and equitable procedures in “regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of consumer credit information.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b). The FCRA therefore imposes a variety of requirements on consumer reporting agencies to verify the accuracy of credit information in general and in response to consumer disputes. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b to 1681p. The statute creates a private right of action against consumer reporting agencies for “negligent or willful violation of any duty imposed by the statute.” Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 56 F.3d 469, 473 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o).
Plaintiff's complaint implicates the FCRA's requirements that a consumer reporting agency follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy in a consumer's credit report, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and investigate disputed information, §§ 1681i(a)(1)(A), 1681i(a)(5)(B).
The FCRA requires that consumer reporting agencies “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” in a consumer's credit report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). To succeed on a claim that a consumer reporting agency failed to follow proper compliance procedures under Section 1681e(b), a plaintiff must show that:
(1) the consumer reporting agency was negligent or willful in that it failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of its credit report; (2) the consumer reporting agency reported inaccurate information about the plaintiff; (3) the plaintiff was injured; and (4) the consumer reporting agency's negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.Wimberly v. Experian Info. Solutions, No. 1:18-CV-6058, 2021 WL 326972, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2021) (citation omitted); see e.g., Phipps v. Experian, No. 20-CV-3368, 2020 WL 3268488, *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020); Anderson v. Experian, No. 19-CV-8833, 2019 WL 6324179, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2019).
If a consumer notifies a consumer reporting agency of an inaccuracy in the information that agency reports, the agency must conduct a “reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). If, after reinvestigation, a consumer reporting agency determines that the disputed information is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, the agency must delete or modify the disputed item of information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A)(i).
If disputed information is deleted from a consumer's file following reinvestigation, the consumer reporting agency may not reinsert the information “unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(B)(i). If the agency does reinsert any previously deleted information, it must provide notice to the consumer, within five business days, that the information has been reinserted. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(B)(ii)-(iii).
“In actions under Section 1681e or Section1681i, the threshold question is whether the disputed credit information is inaccurate.” Phipps, 2020 WL 3268488, at *3 (citing Anderson, 2019 WL 6324179, at *3); see also Gestetner v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 18-CV-5665, 2019 WL 1172283, at * (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019), 2019 WL 1172283, at *2 (“[A] plaintiff asserting claims under § 1681i must demonstrate that the disputed information is inaccurate.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Houston v. TRW Info. Servs., Inc., 707 F.Supp. 689, 691 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“The threshold question in a § 1681e(b) action is whether the challenged credit information is inaccurate. If the information is accurate no further inquiry into the reasonableness of the consumer reporting agency's procedures is necessary.”).
“A plaintiff must therefore identify the specific information on [her] credit report that is inaccurate and explain why the identified information is inaccurate.” Phipps, 2020 WL 3268488, *3 (citing Magee v. Am. Express, No. 19-CV-8476, 2019 WL 6030099, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2019)); Magee, 2019 WL 6030099, at *4 (holding that the plaintiff's allegations that “delinquent payments” on his credit report should be removed because of a “mail fraud investigation” were “insufficient to suggest specific information on his reports was inaccurate”); Gestetner, 2019 WL 1172283, at *2 (dismissing complaint alleging that credit report “showed erroneous and inaccurate information, ” without “any explanation as to why” information was false, for failure to state claim under Section 1681i or Section 1681e(b)).
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to show that her credit report contained inaccurate information. Plaintiff merely alleges that Experian “violat[ed] her as a consumer ....” (ECF No. 2 at 5.) She does not specify the names, addresses, accounts, or other information that is inaccurate. In addition, she does not state facts explaining why such information is inaccurate. “Absent additional facts explaining why the disputed information and inquiries are false, Plaintiff has failed to plead an essential element of a claim under Section 1681e(b) or Section 1681i.” Phipps, 2020 WL 3268488, at *3 (citing Gestetner, 2019 WL 1172283, at *2). Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing that Experian failed to follow reasonable reinvestigation procedures. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A); Jones v. Experian Info. Solutions, Info., 982 F.Supp.3d 268, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (The FCRA “confer[s] upon Plaintiff a statutory entitlement to a reasonable reinvestigation once she disputes an item on her credit report.”). She therefore fails to state a claim under the FCRA.
In light Plaintiff's pro se status, however, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which she alleges facts sufficient to state a claim under the FCRA.
LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid claim under the FCRA, the Court grants Plaintiff sixty days' leave to amend her complaint to detail her claims.
Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint to provide more facts about her claims. In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against Experian. If Plaintiff has an address for defendant, she must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include:
a) the names and titles of all relevant people;
b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred;
c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and
d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.
Essentially, Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated her federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Because Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint, ” and label the document with docket number 21-CV-6898 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.