Lewis v. Capital One Bank

1

TERRANCE LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-5524

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

December 1, 2022

MEMORANDUM

CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Terrance Lewis (“Plaintiff”) asserts two claims against Defendant Capital One N.A.^[1] (“Defendant”), alleging that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681i, when it failed to mark Plaintiff's $1,800 debt as disputed. ECF No. 20. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to which Plaintiff has not responded, and which is now ripe for consideration. ECF No. 21. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DENY the Defendant's Motion. An appropriate order will follow.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court recently recounted the factual background of this case (ECF No. 16) and will describe the relevant facts again, here.

Plaintiff maintains that, on an unidentified date in 2018, Plaintiff used a website called “myFICO.com” to check their credit report. Id. ¶ 18. The report, furnished by myFICO.com, alerted Plaintiff to an outstanding debt in the amount of $1,800 which Defendant reported on an unspecified tradeline. Id. However, the tradeline did not accurately report the debt's balance, the date it was incurred, or its payment history. Id. Due to these inaccuracies, Plaintiff disputed the debt directly with Defendant via phone call on an unspecified date in 2018. Id. During the phone call, Defendant confirmed the inaccuracy of the outstanding balance of $1,800, the date the credit was extended, and the debt's payment history. Id. Despite Defendant's 2018 admission that the tradeline contained inaccuracies, and, presumably, Defendant's recognition that the inaccuracies would be resolved, Plaintiff instead noticed a material diminution of their credit score when they re-checked their credit report in 2021. Id ¶ 19. Therefore, presumably, the inaccuracies were not rectified. Id.

Subsequently, an unidentified “credit reporting agency alerted Defendant of the credit information of the dispute.” Id. ¶ 21. Then, according to Plaintiff, although Defendant had the knowledge, capability, duty, and capacity to correct the inaccurate information that was negatively affecting Plaintiff's credit score, Defendant either negligently or intentionally failed to do so. Id. ¶¶ 22-32. Plaintiff suspects that Defendant's failure to correct the inaccurate information stems from a larger, systemic failure to “design and implement an electronic method to contact Plaintiff,” and presumably other similarly situated consumers, to ensure that the information Defendant reports is as accurate as possible. Id. ¶¶ 32-47.

Finally, at some point, Plaintiff made a “request for deletion or modification of the inaccurate and/or incomplete information identified in consumer reports” and submitted formal dispute letters requesting an explanation of Defendant's reinvestigation procedure. Id. ¶¶ 59, 60. Additionally, at some point, Plaintiff turned to consumer reporting agencies in an attempt to resolve the issue and spent considerable time and effort doing so. Id. ¶¶ 67, 69. It is unclear whether Plaintiff's efforts, with the assistance of these agencies, resulted in corrections to the tradeline's inaccuracies. However, Plaintiff maintains that they have not been provided with a copy of Defendant's reinvestigation results (assuming Defendant reinvestigated the matter in the first place), and that each time Plaintiff attempted to access those results, they were stymied by Defendant. Id. ¶¶ 61-66.

In sum, Defendant's apparent failure to disclose to consumer reporting agencies that the $1,800 debt was disputed caused Plaintiff's FICO scores to be lowered, which resulted in either credit being denied or extended with a “much higher” interest rate. Id. ¶ 20. Accordingly, Plaintiff suffered damage to their personal and credit reputation, which “caused severe humiliation, emotional distress and mental anguish.” Id.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Though previously described by the Court (ECF No. 16), the Court takes this opportunity to reiterate the procedural history of this case. Plaintiff filed a one-count Complaint against Defendant on December 21, 2021, asserting that Defendant's failure to report to consumer reporting agencies that the $1,800 debt was disputed constituted an unfair collection practice violative of the FDCPA. ECF No. 1. Several missed deadlines and procedural deficiencies followed, significantly extending the duration of this matter.

First, the Complaint was procedurally defective because it did not provide an original signature as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, nor did Plaintiff pay the required filing fees. See ECF Nos. 1, 3. In response to these deficiencies, on January 5, 2022, the Court issued an Order requiring that Plaintiff either pay the outstanding fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. ECF No. 3 ¶ 1. The Order further required Plaintiff to complete and return a declaration form with an original signature within thirty days or else the case might “be dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute.” ECF No. 3 ¶ 5. The thirty-day period expired on February 4, 2022, without the required filings or payment from the Plaintiff.

On February 28, 2022, twenty-four days after the Court's February 4 deadline, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. However, Plaintiff failed to return the Declaration form with the required original signature. ECF Nos. 3, 4. Instead of dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, which, at this point, was firmly within the Court's discretion, the Court issued another Order on March 7, 2022, again requiring that Plaintiff complete and return the declaration with an original signature. ECF No. 6 ¶ 1. The Court permitted Plaintiff fourteen days, or until March 21, 2022, to comply. Id.

On March 31, 2022, ten days after the Court's March 21 deadline, the Plaintiff filed the required Declaration form with an original signature. ECF No. 7. After Plaintiff cured the Complaint, the Court issued an Order on April 1, 2022, denying Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and requiring that Plaintiff remit the filing fees by May 1, 2022. ECF No. 8.

On June 7, 2022, still without payment from Plaintiff, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 9. Fourteen days later, on June 28, 2022, Plaintiff remitted the filing fees to the Clerk of Court. ECF No. 10. The Court subsequently vacated the June 7, 2022, Order. ECF Nos. 9, 12. Defendant was served with Plaintiff's cured Complaint on August 15, 2022. ECF No. 13.

On August 25, 2022, Defendant filed a timely Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 14. Defendant asserted that its conduct could not violate the FDCPA because it is not a “debt collector,” as defined by the Act. ECF No. 14 at 3. Defendant continued in the alternative that, even if it were encompassed by the Act's definition of “debt collector,” Plaintiff's claim was still legally deficient because the FDCPA requires that Plaintiff allege a practice by Defendant involving an attempt to collect a debt. Id. at 4. Defendant pointed out that Plaintiff made no explicit allegation that the failure to notify consumer reporting agencies that the debt was in dispute constituted an attempt to collect the $1,800 debt. Id.

Plaintiff had until September 8, 2022, to respond to Defendant's Motion. Pa. R. C. P. 7.1(c) (permitting fourteen days to respond to motions). Plaintiff did not file a response, either timely or untimely. Alternatively, Plaintiff could have filed an amended complaint by September 15, 2022. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B) (permitting twenty-one days to amend the complaint following a motion to dismiss). Plaintiff did not use this option, either. Accordingly, the Court treated Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as uncontested and ripe for consideration. See Pa. R. C. P. 7.1(c).

The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice on October 31, 2022. ECF No. 16. That same day, Plaintiff alerted the Court to a clerical error in which a previously filed Amended Complaint was not properly docketed. ECF No. 17. Though the Amended Complaint was filed on October 20, 2022, well after the September 15, 2022 deadline, the Court accepted the Amended Complaint and vacated its prior order dismissing the case. ECF No. 19.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 8, 2022. ECF No. 21. Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because Capital One is not a consumer reporting agency and because the FCRA does not provide a private right of action for direct disputes made to a furnisher. Id. Again, Plaintiff failed to respond or file an amended complaint by the November 22, 2022 and November 29, 2022 deadlines, respectively. Pa. R. C. P. 7.1(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Court will treat Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as uncontested and ripe for consideration. See Pa. R. C. P. 7.1(c).

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain sufficient facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint is plausible on its face when the plaintiff pleads factual contention that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Courts are required to “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most...