A consumer’s Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit has survived a motion to dismiss sought by one of eight named defendants after a District Court judge in Georgia concluded that the defendant’s own unwillingness to carefully read the complaint did not make the complaint deficient.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit against eight defendants, including credit reporting agencies, furnishers, and debt collectors, alleging violations of the FCRA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and common-law tort claims arising from credit reporting disputes.
- One defendant, an auto financing company, moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing it was an impermissible “shotgun pleading” so vague and disorganized that the defendant could not determine what claims were being asserted against it.
- The defendant made that argument so forcefully that it also requested sanctions against the plaintiff, characterizing the amended complaint as “akin to obstruction of justice.”
- The other seven defendants in the case managed to file answers to the same complaint without raising similar objections.
The ruling: Judge Tilman E. Self, III of the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied the motion to dismiss. The judge noted pointedly that across 24 pages of briefing spanning two separate motions, the defendant never once identified which specific allegations it found confusing.
- Instead, the defendant laid out the legal framework for shotgun pleadings and repeatedly emphasized that courts have the authority to dismiss on those grounds, apparently hoping the court would do so without being shown why.
- The judge wasn’t buying it. He walked through the complaint count by count and found it organized enough that the claims against the defendant were readily apparent.
- The plaintiff had grouped defendants into clearly labeled categories: “CRA Defendants,” “Furnisher Defendants,” and “FDCPA Defendants.”
- The defendant, as a furnisher, was on the hook for Count II (FCRA furnisher violations under Section 1681s-2(b)) and Count IV (common-law tort), and clearly excluded from the counts directed at the credit bureaus and debt collectors.
- The judge wrote that “it’s kind of shocking that [the defendant] can’t (or won’t take the time to) figure out the claims asserted against it,” and observed that the defendant “simply hoped the Court would bite at its arguments and rubber stamp its motion.”
- The sanctions request was denied along with the dismissal bid.
