Summary
finding that the plaintiff's FDCPA claim based on the debt collector pulling the plaintiff's consumer report failed as a matter of law because the debt collector had a permissible purpose for obtaining the report under the FCRA
Summary of this case from Thiessen v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLCOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-11914-PBS
06-12-2014
MEGHAN SEARLE, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
The pro se plaintiff, Meghan Searle ("Searle"), contends that the defendant unlawfully made a credit report inquiry about her, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., the Massachusetts Fair Credit Reporting Act ("MFCRA"), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, §§ 50-68, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. The defendant, Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. ("Convergent"), moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that its inquiry was made in connection with efforts to collect a consumer debt, and was therefore authorized by statute, and that the complaint otherwise fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The