A District Court judge in North Carolina has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss after it was sued for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ruling that the plaintiff’s amended complaint did not contain enough information to allege that a violation of either statute had taken place.
The Background: The defendant was hired to collect on an unpaid apartment debt. The defendant allegedly tried to call the plaintiff “multiple” times to collect on the non-existent debt, and when it was not paid, furnished false information to the credit reporting agencies that was placed on the plaintiff’s credit report. The false reporting allegedly led to the plaintiff getting divorced, spending money on medical expenses for therapy, becoming depressed, and homeless when he was unable to secure credit.
The Ruling: By allegedly furnishing false information to the credit reporting agencies, Judge James C. Dever III of the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina took that to mean the plaintiff was accusing the defendant of violating Section 1681s-2(a) of the FCRA. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, there is no private right of action under that section of the statute. Accordingly, the judge dismissed that claim.
- The plaintiff also accused the defendant of engaging in “unfair practices,” which Judge Dever took to mean the plaintiff was accusing the defendant of violating the FDCPA. But the plaintiff never alleged the defendant was a debt collector or that it engaged in an act or omission that is prohibited by the FDCPA and dismissed the claim.
