A District Court judge in Florida has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that her claim should not be subject to the law’s two-year statute of limitations for filing a claim.
The background: The case was filed after the plaintiff alleged that the defendant accessed her consumer credit report without a permissible purpose on March 31, 2022. According to court documents, the plaintiff discovered the alleged unauthorized inquiry on August 6, 2022, when she obtained a copy of her Experian credit report. However, she did not file her lawsuit until October 21, 2024 — more than two years after the discovery of the inquiry.
- The plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations should begin from June 18, 2024, the date she received confirmation from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the defendant lacked a permissible purpose to access her report. She contended that without this confirmation, she could not have reasonably known that her rights under the FCRA had been violated.
The ruling: Judge Roy K. Altman of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the FCRA’s statute of limitations is clear: a plaintiff must file suit within the earlier of two years from the date of discovery or five years from the date of the violation. Since the plaintiff admitted she observed the credit inquiry on August 6, 2022, the court held that she was required to file her claim by August 6, 2024.
- Judge Altman rejected the plaintiff’s argument that her claim did not accrue until she received confirmation from the CFPB. He cited precedent emphasizing that “a layperson need not have sophisticated knowledge of the law for the statute of limitations to begin to run” and ruled that merely observing the credit inquiry was sufficient to trigger the limitations period.
- “To base plaintiff’s accrual date on a third party’s interpretation of the same facts that she already knew would distort Congress’ intent in enacting a discovery-based statute of limitations,” Judge Altman wrote.
- Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, noting that the proposed amendments did not introduce any new facts that could overcome the statute of limitations issue. The plaintiff had sought to add claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and common-law intrusion upon seclusion, but the court ruled that these claims were not substantively different from the original allegations and thus would be futile.
