When you see a 17-page ruling from a District Court judge granting a motion to dismiss claims that defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you think there might be something juicy or nuanced or interesting to the case, but in this suit, it took the judge 17 pages to lay out why the plaintiff did not state a claim that the statutes were violated.
The background: The case stemmed from a dispute over consumer loan debt originally held by Navy Federal Credit Union. The plaintiff alleged that Navy Federal sold the debt to another company — one of the defendants — and that it reported to two of the credit bureaus that it had purchased the account. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had no documentation to prove ownership and failed to provide verification. He further argued that it inaccurately reported the accounts to the credit reporting agencies, including the date the accounts were opened, and failed to note that the debt was being disputed.
- The plaintiff also claimed that the credit reporting agencies did not conduct a reasonable investigation into his disputes, instead simply repeating information provided by the debt buyer.
The ruling: Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the District Court for the District of Maryland granted motions to dismiss from the debt buyer and the credit reporting agency. The opinion highlighted several shortcomings in the plaintiff’s case.
- Most notably, the complaint did not allege facts showing that his consumer report contained inaccurate information, nor did it establish that any investigation conducted by the defendants was unreasonable.
- On the FDCPA claims, the judge pointed out that the plaintiff failed to provide facts demonstrating the debt was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, or that the debt buyer met the statutory definition of a debt collector.
- The state law claims fared no better. The court ruled that the MCDCA and MCPA claims were preempted by the FCRA because they were based on allegations of inaccurate credit reporting.
- The defamation claim also fell short since there were no facts showing that the debt buyer reported false information with malice or willful intent to injure.
- As Judge Griggsby summarized, the amended complaint “simply lacks sufficient facts to show that there is inaccurate information” in the consumer report.
