Opinion
CIVIL NO. 20-2498 (DSD/BRT)
2021-04-26
Virgil CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants.
Jenna Dakroub, Esq. and Price Law Group, APC, 8245 North 85 Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85258, counsel for plaintiff. Eric A. Nicholson, Esq. and Jones Day – Detroit, 150 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2100, Detroit, MI 48226, counsel for defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Jenna Dakroub, Esq. and Price Law Group, APC, 8245 North 85th Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85258, counsel for plaintiff.
Eric A. Nicholson, Esq. and Jones Day – Detroit, 150 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2100, Detroit, MI 48226, counsel for defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
ORDER
David S. Doty, Judge
This matter is before the court upon defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Based on a review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
This Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) dispute arises out of allegedly inaccurate information on plaintiff Virgil Campbell's credit report following his discharge from bankruptcy. In December 2018, Campbell leased a vehicle from Americredit/GM Financial (Account). Am. Compl. ¶ 29. In April 2020, Campbell filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota. Id. ¶ 31. He obtained a discharge on July 14, 2020, which included the Account. Id. ¶ 34. Campbell thereafter returned the vehicle to Americredit/GM Financial. Id. ¶¶ 32, 34.
In September and October 2020, Experian issued credit reports for Campbell, which included information about his bankruptcy case. Id. ¶ 35; Myers Decl. Ex. B, at 1, 19. Specifically, the reports list the status of the bankruptcy proceedings as "Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharged." Myers Decl. Ex. B, at 1, 19. The reports, however, inaccurately indicated that Campbell still owed $11,599 ($522 per month) on the Account. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42-43; Myers Decl. Ex. B, at 10, 26. Campbell alleges that Experian knew that the lease was discharged in bankruptcy but nevertheless continued to report the debt as outstanding. Id. ¶¶ 47-48.
Accordingly, Campbell contends that Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures in issuing his credit report, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). Id. ¶¶ 53-72. Campbell alleges that he has suffered damages in the form of loss of credit opportunities; credit denials; less favorable credit rates; and embarrassment, distress, humiliation, and mental anguish. Id. ¶¶ 49-51.
Campbell commenced this suit against Experian on December 8, 2020, and filed an amended complaint on February 9, 2021, alleging one violation of the FCRA. Campbell specifically alleges that Experian violated the FRCA by reporting that he still owed money on the vehicle lease despite also reporting that his debts were discharged in bankruptcy. He seeks declaratory relief; actual, statutory, and punitive damages; fees and costs; and pre- and post-judgment interest. Experian now moves to dismiss.
Campbell also sued Equifax Information Services, LLC and Trans Union LLC, but they are no longer parties to this action. See ECF Nos. 27, 47.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " ‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff [has pleaded] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "[L]abels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" are not sufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The court does not consider matters outside the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). The court may, however, consider matters of public record and materials that are "necessarily embraced by the pleadings." Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the court considers the credit reports at issue. II. Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA
The FCRA outlines a number of procedural and substantive requirements meant to "ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy." Poehl v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 528 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) ). Section 1681e(b) requires consumer reporting agencies like Experian to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information" contained in a consumer's credit report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
To state a claim under § 1681e(b), Campbell must plausibly allege that Experian "failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy and that this failure caused inaccurate information to appear on h[is] credit report." Morris v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 478 F.Supp.3d 765, 768 (D. Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted) (citing Hauser v. Equifax, Inc., 602 F.2d 811, 814–15 (8th Cir. 1979) ). He has done so here, despite Experian's arguments to the contrary.
Campbell plausibly alleges that Experian violated the FRCA by inaccurately reporting the Account as open and carrying a balance despite knowing that Campbell's debts were discharged in bankruptcy. In other words, Campbell alleges that had Experian met its duty to follow reasonable procedures, it would have correctly reported that the Account was discharged in bankruptcy and no longer carried a balance.
Experian may ultimately be able to establish that it followed reasonable procedures in preparing Campbell's credit report, but the court cannot decide that issue without factual development. As a result, Experian's motion is denied.
Experian argues that the class action settlement in White v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. SA CV 05-1070, 2008 WL 11518799 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2008), precludes Campbell's claim. The court has already held to the contrary. See Peterson v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 20-cv-606, slip. op. (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2021); see also Morris, 478 F.Supp.3d at 771 ("That a report complies with the White settlement does not by itself establish that the report complies with § 1681e(b), however."); Alsibai v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 488 F.Supp.3d 840, 847 (D. Minn. 2020) ("White is not binding on a federal district court in Minnesota.") (internal citation and brackets omitted).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERERD that the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 16] is denied.