A Magistrate Court judge in Florida has denied a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case while also admonishing them for using artificial intelligence to craft their argument. In her report, the judge concluded that private litigants cannot obtain injunctive relief under the FCRA and warned the plaintiffs that further reliance on fabricated legal citations could result in sanctions.
The background: The plaintiffs sued the defendant, alleging violations of section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA stemming from the financing and repossession of a vehicle. One of the plaintiffs suffered an accident and financial hardship after purchasing the vehicle and requested a deferment but were denied. The defendant sent a delinquency notice in June 2025 and later repossessed the vehicle.
- The plaintiffs allege that the repossession was improperly handled, resulting in more than $34,000 in damage. They further contend that the defendant posted a $12,894 “deficiency balance adjustment” before any sale occurred and continued to report inaccurate information to the credit bureaus, including what they describe as a falsely reported July 2025 repossession and an improperly verified tradeline after disputes were submitted.
- After filing suit, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the defendant’s continued reporting constituted willful violations of the FCRA and caused irreparable harm.
The ruling: Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida focused on whether injunctive relief is even available to private plaintiffs under the FCRA. Citing prior decisions from the Southern District of Florida and other courts, the judge concluded that “the FCRA does not, itself, confer upon this court the power to issue a preliminary injunction in consumer cases.” The statute provides for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, but not declaratory or injunctive relief for private litigants.
- The plaintiffs attempted to rely on a recent Eleventh Circuit decision, arguing that it permitted injunctive relief. The Court rejected that argument, noting that the cited case addressed what constitutes an actionable inaccuracy under the FCRA and did not discuss injunctive relief at all.
- Judge Augustin-Birch went further, suggesting that the plaintiffs’ briefing may have relied on artificial intelligence. She pointed to a citation to a non-existent page in the Eleventh Circuit opinion, stating, “No level of misreading would cause Plaintiffs to cite to a non-existent page.”
- The judge warned that if additional false or inaccurate citations appear in future filings, it may require the plaintiffs to appear in person to explain why sanctions should not be imposed.
Pena et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 25-cv-62431
