June 24, 2021

Volume XI, Number 175

Advertisement

June 23, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 22, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 21, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Plaintiff’s Second Bite at the Apple Fails: Court Dismisses FCRA litigation

Another day, another data privacy litigation dismissed.  In this instance, the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a plaintiff’s second attempt at pleading violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) in Hanberry v. Chrysler Capital, No. 21-397, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77478 at *1-*2 (E.D. La. Apr. 22, 2021).  Read on to learn more.

The plaintiff in Hanberry held a vehicle loan through Chrysler Capital.  After multiple attempts to amend her claims in a previous lawsuit, the plaintiff filed this new case, alleging identical FCRA claims against the defendant.  In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Chrysler Capital violated the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2, by “reporting to unspecified credit reporting agencies inaccurate and incomplete information regarding [plaintiff’s] account.”  2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77478 at *1-*2.  The plaintiff also alleged she sent a letter to Chrysler Capital seeking a reinvestigation into her account. Id. at *2.

The FCRA requires furnishers of credit information to (i) provide accurate information on consumers to credit reporting agencies under section 1681s-2(a), and (ii) comply with certain obligations upon notice by a credit reporting agency of a dispute under section 1681s-2(b).  However, the FTC, or other authorized governmental agency, has the sole power to enforce § 1681s-2(a).  To put it otherwise, there is no private right of action under the subsection of the FCRA upon which plaintiff’s claim was based.   The court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegation stating “she notified the credit reporting agencies of a dispute and then also notified Chrysler Capital herself,” was insufficient to satisfy Rule 12(b)(6) for purposes of stating a claim under the FCRA.  Accordingly the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under either Section 1681s-2(a) or 2(b).

For more on this area of the law, stay tuned.  CPW will be there.

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 125
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Hannah J. Makinde Corporate Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Los Angeles, CA
Associate

Hannah Makinde is a litigation associate who practices in federal and state courts. Her practice includes general corporate litigation, toxic tort, contractual disputes and various matters for automotive clients.

Hannah manages cases at all stages of litigation, with particular experience in preparing pleadings, motions and discovery, as well as representing clients in both offensive and defensive depositions.

Prior to joining the firm, Hannah practiced civil litigation as an in-house attorney for a natural gas provider. In previous years, she clerked for the Honorable Roger...

213-689-5142
Advertisement
Advertisement