A District Court judge in Oklahoma has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss clams it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as Oklahoma state law over how a creditor handled his dispute.
The background: The case arose from a dispute involving an alleged consumer debt of approximately $29,901 owed to the defendant.
- The plaintiff claimed the defendant reported false information about the account to credit bureaus and failed to properly validate the debt after he disputed it in writing. The plaintiff alleged that the continued reporting of the account harmed his credit reputation, caused the denial of credit opportunities, and resulted in emotional distress and inconvenience.
- The plaintiff asserted violations of the FDCPA, the FCRA, and the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.
The ruling: Judge Jodi W. Dishman of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed all three claims.
- First, she ruled that the FDCPA did not apply because the defendant was collecting a debt owed to itself rather than attempting to collect on behalf of another entity.
- Second, she dismissed the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act claim, finding the complaint contained only a single conclusory statement that the defendant engaged in deceptive practices by attempting to enforce an unverified debt. The court characterized the allegation as a “threadbare recital” of the elements of a cause of action that was insufficient under federal pleading standards. Judge Dishmand also concluded that the state law claim was preempted by the FCRA because it concerned the furnishing of credit information, a subject area regulated by federal statute.
- Finally, she rejected the FCRA claim itself. The judge explained that a claim under Section 1681s-2(b) requires allegations that a consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher of a dispute. The complaint alleged only that the plaintiff personally notified the defendant. Because the complaint contained no allegations that a credit reporting agency provided notice of the dispute, the court ruled that the claim failed as a matter of law.
