Bonilla v. Am. Heritage Fed. Credit Union, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2276

MERSADIES BONILLA v. AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2276

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

July 14, 2020

MEMORANDUM

KEARNEY, J.

We are again called to review Mersadies Bonilla's pro se claims against her credit union and its agents regarding its credit reporting of an August 2016 disputed deposit into her account. In her amended complaint, Ms. Bonilla alleges American Heritage Federal Credit Union, its Chief Executive Officer Bruce Foulke, Risk Compliance Officer Danielle Basich, and an unnamed branch manager violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act/Truth in Lending Act, and engaged in fraud and negligence from July 2019 until early April 2020 by continuing to report an August 2016 disputed deposit which they knew to be false. Ms. Bonilla filed three pro se lawsuits challenging this conduct in two courts. She is understandably frustrated as a person not trained in federal consumer law as to why she cannot simply recover for what she perceives as wrongful reporting of an obligation she did not owe until the reporting companies corrected her report in April 2020. After parsing through several pro se allegations most of which are repeated from earlier dismissed complaints, we find Ms. Bonilla pleads a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim against the Credit Union but not against its individual agents. After three attempts, she also does not state claims under the Fair Credit Billing Act, Truth in Lending Act, or under Pennsylvania law. We will proceed into discovery on the reporting claim against the Credit Union.

I. Pro se alleged facts.

Mersadies Bonilla has been challenging the reporting of a July 2016 transaction in her credit union account for almost four years without counsel. She filed at least four lawsuits. We earlier dismissed several pro se claims and consolidated her cases before us now. She timely filed an amended complaint in this case hoping to bring all her claims at one time.¹

July 2016 deposit in Ms. Bonilla's account leads to criminal charges.

In July 2016, someone transferred $5,600 from the account of Credit Union shareholder Joyce Eubanks into Ms. Bonilla's account.² Believing the transfer fraudulent, the Credit Union "reversed" the payment back to Ms. Eubanks.³ This transaction left Ms. Bonilla's account balance at negative $3,334.92, which the Credit Union began reporting to credit reporting agencies as a charge-off to Ms. Bonilla's savings account.⁴ Ms. Bonilla believed the Credit Union's unidentified branch manager, "acting outside their authority," contacted the Philadelphia Police Department to report fraud on the account.⁵ A state court issued an arrest warrant for Ms. Bonilla in August 2016.⁶ Ms. Bonilla denied wrongdoing.

The public docket reflects the Commonwealth brought criminal charges against Ms. Bonilla in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on August 19, 2016 relating to the money the Credit Union believed someone fraudulently deposited into her account.⁷ The public docket shows the Commonwealth charged Ms. Bonilla with forgery; theft by unlawful taking-movable property; theft by deception-false impression; receiving stolen property; identity theft; criminal use of a communication facility; access to a device used to obtain or attempt to obtain property or services; and securing execution of documents by deception under Pennsylvania law.⁸

In July 2019, the Philadelphia District Attorney's office advised the Credit Union of its decision to dismiss the criminal charges against Ms. Bonilla.⁹ Ms. Bonilla disputed the CreditUnion's reported delinquencies with all credit reporting agencies in May, July, September, October, and December 2019 and January and March 2020 and her credit reports regarding her accounts at the Credit Union read: "Account in dispute-reported by subscriber/Account information disputed by customer under the Fair Credit Reporting Act."¹⁰

For unexplained reasons, the Philadelphia District Attorney did not nolle pros the charges against Ms. Bonilla until March 11, 2020.¹¹

Ms. Bonilla sues both here and in state court alleging the Credit Union did not correct her

credit reports when it knew the Commonwealth intended to dismiss the charges.

In late April 2019, Ms. Bonilla pro se sued the Credit Union, Mr. Foulke, Ms. Basich, and an unnamed branch manager in both state court and here.

In this Court, she alleged "Defendants" continued to report to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax from July 2019 through early April 2020 delinquencies in her account although each knew from the Philadelphia District Attorney's office in July 2019 it planned to dismiss charges against Ms. Bonilla, and while the criminal case remained pending.¹² Ms. Bonilla alleged "Defendants" continued to report delinquencies to the credit reporting agencies and the Credit Union, as a "creditor," "took legal action to collect the disputed amount, threatened [Ms. Bonilla's] credit rating, reported [her] accounts as delinquent, and restricted/closed [her] account while [she] disputed charges."¹³ She further alleged a "Defendant" then reported to Check Systems Inc. a charged off savings deposit account in the amount of $4,818.35 for July 2019 through early April 2020.¹⁴ Ms. Bonilla alleged this charge-off amount is incorrect and different from the amount reported to other credit reporting agencies. She claimed Ms. Basich, Mr. Foulke, and the Credit Union's reporting to Check Systems, Inc. of an incorrect amount is "libel defamation of character," negligent, malicious, and "Defendant is seeking unfair and unjust enrichment."¹⁵ Ms. Bonilla also alleged someone took $600 of "secured money" and "there is no present right to security fundsand/or interest on account or money received by [Credit Union] January 20th of 2016 from Plaintiff [sic]."¹⁶

Ms. Bonilla alleged a "Defendant," in response to her disputed charges with the credit reporting agencies, reported back to the credit reporting agencies its accounting is accurate, and Ms. Bonilla's two accounts are fraudulent and delinquent as of December 2016 even though a "Defendant" knew in July 2019 the District Attorney intended to drop charges against her.¹⁷

The reported delinquencies in her accounts at the Credit Union only cleared up after she mailed a notarized letter to the credit reporting agencies and the Credit Union. An unidentified "Fraud Investigator" at the Credit Union confirmed receipt of her letter on April 2, 2020 and told her of the "remov[al] of her accounts from Check Systems and ... credit bureaus."¹⁸ The Credit Union continued to inaccurately report to credit reporting agencies for three more days (through April 5, 2020).¹⁹ "Defendants" failed to return monies to her in the amount taken from her savings and credit card accounts despite learning in July 2019 the Philadelphia District Attorney intended to dismiss charges against her.²⁰

The charges against her having been nolle prossed, Ms. Bonilla alleged "Defendants" "offset" her loan without her authorization; continued to report to credit reporting agencies of a debt owed by her; continued to inaccurately report after July 2019; failed to thoroughly investigate the 2016 deposit before calling the Philadelphia Police; withheld information from the Philadelphia Police; closed her accounts and marked them fraudulent when the accounts were not fraudulent; failed to tell her of the Philadelphia Police Department's investigation; and used abusive tactics when acting as a debt collector.²¹

We granted Ms. Bonilla's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and, consistent with our screening obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), dismissed Ms. Bonilla's claims underthe Dodd-Frank Act and Regulation P²² with prejudice and dismissed without prejudice her claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),²³ Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),²⁴ Truth in Lending Act ("TILA")²⁵ and Fair Credit Billing Act ("FCBA"),²⁶ the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"),²⁷ and state law claims. We granted her leave to file an amended complaint if she wished to proceed with one or more of these claims.²⁸

Ms. Bonilla filed an amended complaint alleging Defendants' conduct beginning in July 2019 violates the FCRA and implementing Regulation V,²⁹ the FDCPA, TILA and implementing Regulation Z,³⁰ and state law claims for fraud, "gross" negligence, and defamation.³¹ We screened her amended complaint under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

While we screened Ms. Bonilla's amended complaint filed here, we did not know she filed a complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on April 23, 2020 against American Heritage Credit Union, Mr. Foulke, Ms. Basich, and an unnamed branch manager based on the same facts. In her Philadelphia County action (which we refer to as Bonilla III), Ms. Bonilla alleged the same Defendants violated Pennsylvania statutes regulating credit unions and alleged common law claims of negligence; defamation; failure to properly train employees; "intentional or gross negligence"; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; fraud; unfair and deceptive trade practices; violation of TILA; and alleged Defendants' conduct prevented her from exercising her federal and state constitutional rights. Defendants removed the action on May 13, 2020 (No. 20-2276),³² and moved to dismiss the complaint.³³

On May 19, 2020, we issued our screening memorandum in support of dismissing the amended complaint in Bonilla II finding Ms. Bonilla failed to state a claim under the under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; Part B of TILA; and Pennsylvania state law claims for fraud,"gross" negligence, and defamation.³⁴ We found Ms. Bonilla stated a claim in Bonilla II against the Credit Union only under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for furnisher liability.³⁵

Faced with two pending actions brought by Ms. Bonilla against the same defendants based on the same...