A Magistrate Court judge in Florida has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act on the grounds that at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff’s claims have to be accepted as true. The decision keeps alive a lawsuit centered on what information must be included when a consumer reporting agency provides a copy of a consumer’s file.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit after requesting a copy of his consumer file from the defendant. When the file arrived, he claimed key pieces of information were missing, including full account numbers, account details, and payment history.
- This omitted information is typically included in the reports the defendant provides to third parties, and the plaintiff argued that leaving it out of the consumer disclosure violated section 1681g(a)(1) of the FCRA, which requires agencies to “clearly and accurately disclose” all information in the consumer’s file.
- The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that only information bearing on creditworthiness and included in a credit report must be disclosed, pointing to out-of-circuit precedent interpreting the term “file” more narrowly.
The ruling: Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida declined to take up that larger legal question at this stage. Even if the defendant’s narrower definition of “file” were correct, the court noted that the plaintiff explicitly alleged the missing information is included in credit reports sold to third parties.
- Judge Augustin-Birch also cited Eleventh Circuit precedent emphasizing that courts evaluating a motion to dismiss must accept factual allegations and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Because the plaintiff alleged that the omitted items appear in third-party reports, the motion to dismiss “is due to be denied.”
