Shaunfield v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.

991 F.Supp.2d 786

John E. SHAUNFIELD, Plaintiff,

v.EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:12–CV–4686–M (BH).

United States District Court,

N.D. Texas,

Dallas Division.

Jan. 9, 2014.

Limited on Preemption Grounds

V.T.C.A., Bus. & C. § 20.06(d, e)

John E. Shaunfield, Carrollton, TX, pro se.

Katherine Jean Lyons, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BARBARA M.G. LYNN, District Judge.

After reviewing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge for plain error, I am of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

Defendant Radiology Associates of North Texas ‘Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), filed May 1, 2013 (doc. 44), Defendant American Honda Finance Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted and Brief in Support, filed May 3, 2013 (doc. 49), and Defendant Credit Systems International, Inc. ‘s Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6), filed May 17, 2013 (doc. 60), are GRANTED. By separate judgment, all of Plaintiff's claims against them will be DISMISSED with prejudice.

Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Brief in Support, filed July 11, 2013 (doc. 78), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's claims against Experian for defamation and violations of the FCRA and the Tex. Bus. & Comm.Code are allowed to proceed, but his request for attorney's fees is DISMISSED.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the Special Order No. 3–251, this case was automatically referred for pretrial management. Before the Court are Defendant Radiology Associates of North Texas' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), filed May 1, 2013 (doc. 44), Defendant American Honda Finance Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted and Brief in Support, filed May 3, 2013 (doc. 49), Defendant Credit Systems International, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Under FRCP 12(b)(6), filed May 17, 2013 (doc. 60), and Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Brief in Support, filed July 11, 2013 (doc. 78). Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, Radiology's, AHFC's, and CSI's Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (docs. 44; 49; 60) should be GRANTED, and Experian's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 78) should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 2, 2012, John E. Shaunfield (Plaintiff) filed this pro se action against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Experian) in state court, asserting claims for defamation and violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Texas Business and Commerce Code. (Orig. Compl. (doc.1–1) at 7–10.) ¹ All the claims were premised on his allegations that Experian repeatedly provided credit reports containing inaccurate information about him to various entities. ( Id. at 8–9.) He seeks damages “in excess of one million dollars,” attorney's fees, and court costs. ( Id. at 10.)

After Experian removed the case to federal court, Plaintiff amended his complaint as a matter of course on September 25, 2012, to assert additional facts in support of his claims against Experian. (First Am. Compl. (doc. 11).) With leave of Court, he filed his second amended complaint on March 27, 2013, adding numerous defendants ² and making additional factual allegations. (Second Am. Compl. (doc. 34).) The second amended complaint asserts that Experian maintained and repeatedly disseminated two different credit reports under Plaintiff's name, one with the wrong birth date and incorrectly showing that he had no or “limited” credit history, and the other one containing numerous inaccurate credit items furnished to Experian by the other Defendants. ( Id. at 2–5.) He claims that he tried unsuccessfully for several years to resolve these inaccuracies with Experian and submitted legal documents in support. ( Id. at 2–3.) Although Experian allegedly corrected many of the errors in a credit report dated July 27, 2011, by April 30, 2012, it had deleted the correct information, “refuse[d] to recognize [Plaintiff's] documents as accurate,” and continued reporting “grossly inaccurate information.” ( Id. at 4.) After Plaintiff filed another dispute in September 2012, Experian conducted an investigation and notified the other Defendants of his dispute. ( Id. at 4–5.) On October 24, 2012, Experian provided Plaintiff with the results of its investigation, which allegedly showed that none of the other Defendants corrected the disputed items and that Experian still maintained two, inaccurate credit files under his name. ( Id. at 5.) ³

Radiology, AHFC, and CSI now move to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. (docs. 44; 49; 60.) ⁴ Experian moves for judgment on the pleadings. (doc. 78.) The motions are ripe for recommendation.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Radiology, AHFC, and CSI move to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (docs. 44; 49; 60.) Experian moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). (doc. 78.)

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

Rule 12(b)(6) allows motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are disfavored and rarely granted. Sosa v. Coleman, 646 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir.1981). Under the 12(b)(6) standard, a court cannot look beyond the face of the pleadings. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir.1996); see also Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied,530 U.S. 1229, 120 S.Ct. 2659, 147 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000). It is well-established that “ pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir.1981). Nonetheless, regardless of whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or is represented by counsel, pleadings must show specific, well-pleaded facts, not mere conclusory allegations to avoid dismissal. Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.1992). The court must accept those well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Baker, 75 F.3d at 196. “[A] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the alleged] facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955; accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (emphasizing that “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions”). The alleged facts must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In short, a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citations omitted). When plaintiffs “have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955; accord Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

B. Rule 12(c)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides a means “to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). The standard for deciding a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Guidry v. Am. Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir.2007). As with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the question under Rule 12(c) is whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support his claim, not whether he will ultimately prevail on the merits. Great Plains Trust, 313 F.3d at 313. Unlike a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), however, a party may file a motion under Rule 12(c) “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).

III. EXPERIAN

Plaintiff brings claims against Experian for defamation and violations of §§ 1681i(a) and 1681e(b) of the FCRA and § 20.06(d), (e) of the Tex. Bus. & Comm.Code. (doc. 34 at 3–8.)

A. FCRA Claims⁵

“Congress enacted the FCRA in 1970 ‘to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.’ ” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b)). Among other things, the Act “require[s] that consumer reporting agencies ⁶ adopt reasonable procedures...