A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed, with prejudice, a Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit against a defendant accused of reporting inconsistent balances and using deceptive collection communications, ruling that a three-page amended complaint accompanied by 237 pages of exhibits still failed to state a plausible claim.
The background: The plaintiff, representing himself, accused the defendant of reporting inconsistent balances of $10,356 and $2,281 on his credit reports.
- The plaintiff disputed the information with the credit reporting agencies, but claimed the defendant failed to investigate and continued reporting the inaccurate balances, conduct he described as “willful and systemic.”
- He also accused the defendant of using deceptive and misleading communications, pointing to what he called conflicting statements about collection activity.
- Back in March, the judge dismissed the original complaint for failing to state a claim, but gave the plaintiff a chance to fix the deficiencies in an amended filing.
- The amended complaint ran three pages, but came with more than 235 pages of exhibits, including highlighted credit reports, dispute letters, and complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- As damages, the plaintiff claimed his credit score dropped to 557, that he was stuck with a loan carrying a 19.61% interest rate, and that he was denied insurance and suffered emotional distress.
The ruling: Judge Michael M. Baylson of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the suit, who wrote that the plaintiff never explained how the alleged misreporting caused any of his claimed harms, leaving him without standing to sue.
- The plaintiff did not say what credit or insurance he applied for, who denied him, or why any denial was traceable to the defendant’s conduct.
- The exhibits also undercut the core allegation. The supposedly “inconsistent” balances appeared to correspond to two different credit card accounts from the same lender, one ending in 7322 and another ending in 8921, both of which were taken over by the defendant.
- On the FDCPA claim, the plaintiff never identified what statements were misleading or to whom they were made, and never even alleged the defendant was a debt collector, identifying it only as a furnisher.
- Attaching a mountain of exhibits was no substitute for pleading facts, the judge noted, invoking a colorful line from a prior ruling: “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.”
- Because the plaintiff had already been given the roadmap to fix his claims and failed to do so, the dismissal was with prejudice.
