Smith v. Transunion

Smith v. Transunion

Opinion

Order

This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 24). In ruling on this Motion, the Court considered Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Doc. 25) and Defendant's reply in support of its motion (Doc. 33).

I. Background¹

Plaintiff Tasha Smith ("Smith") brought this action against Defendant Trans Union, LLC ("Trans Union"), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in connection with the reporting of her Self Financial, Inc. / Lead Bank² account (the "Account"). Smith admits that the Account was at least 60 days overdue when it was fully paid off and closed with a $0 balance in September 2019. Smith alleges that her Trans Union credit report on the Account contained inaccurate pay status information because the September 2019 rating indicates that the account was 60 days overdue when it had been paid in full. The report also states that the account was closed on September 17, 2019 [*2]  and that the maximum delinquency was 60 days. On June 29, 2020, Smith submitted a dispute letter to Trans Union, claiming that Trans Union's reporting of the Account was materially misleading.

Trans Union did not alter its reporting of the Account and Smith now claims that Trans Union violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct her credit report. Trans Union now moves to dismiss Smith's claims for failing to state a claim.

II. Legal Standard

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, see, e.g., Jackson v. Okaloosa County, 21 F.3d 1531, 1534 (11th Cir. 1994), and must limit its consideration to the pleadings and any exhibits attached thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c); see also GSW, Inc. v. Long County, 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1993). The Court will liberally construe the complaint's allegations in the Plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S. Ct. 1843, 23 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1969). However, "conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003).

In reviewing a complaint on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "courts must be mindful that the Federal Rules require only that the complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" United States v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 345 F.3d 866, 880 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). This is a liberal [*3]  pleading requirement, one that does not require a plaintiff to plead with particularity every element of a cause of action. Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001). However, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds for his or her entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-55, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The complaint's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," id. at 555, and cross "the line from conceivable to plausible." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.