The Fair Credit Reporting Act preempts some state law claims, but a Magistrate Judge in Tennessee has granted a plaintiff’s motion to remand a case alleging violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act over reporting false and inaccurate information to a credit reporting agency back to state court where it was originally filed. The judge did deny a motion from the plaintiff for attorney’s fees and costs related to the defendant removing the case to federal court.
The background: The plaintiff initially filed the lawsuit in Tennessee state court alleging that the defendant “willfully and knowingly reported false and inaccurate information” on his credit report. The original complaint included claims under the FCRA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
- After the case was removed to federal court based on the federal claims, the plaintiff amended his complaint to drop the FCRA and FDCPA causes of action, leaving only the TCPA claim and simultaneously filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. The plaintiff also sought expedited consideration and reimbursement of legal costs.
The ruling: Magistrate Judge Jill McCook ruled that the amended complaint no longer presented a federal question and did not satisfy any requirements needed to remain in federal court.
- Specifically, the judge rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s damages request — $24,875 trebled under Tennessee law — should be calculated as $99,500 by both tripling and then adding back the original amount. The correct total, the judge wrote, was simply $74,625, which falls below the federal threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
- On the federal question side, the court disagreed with the defendant’s claim that the TCPA claim was simply a rebranded FCRA claim. “Although the FCRA preempts some state law claims… courts have consistently declined to find that the FCRA completely preempts state law for removal purposes,” the judge explained, citing a string of cases. The court held that ordinary preemption is insufficient for removal and found no federal issues that must be resolved to address the TCPA claim.
- The plaintiff’s request for costs was denied, however, with the court finding the removal was not “objectively unreasonable” because federal claims had originally been asserted. “Although Capital One did not prevail on its artful pleading argument, its position was not so tenuous that the Court can say it was objectively unreasonable,” Judge McCook wrote.
