Forrest v. Universal Savings Bank, No. 06-4337.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Manion
• Citation: 507 F.3d 540
• Parties: Mary FORREST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL SAVINGS BANK, F.A., Defendant-Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 06-4337.
• Decision Date: 25 October 2007

507 F.3d 540 Mary FORREST, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSAL SAVINGS BANK, F.A., Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-4337. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued September 11, 2007. Decided October 25, 2007. Rehearing En Banc Denied November 28, 2007.^*

[507 F.3d 541]

Robert K. O'Reilly (argued), Ademi & O'Reilly, Cudahy, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Victoria R. Collado (argued), Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before RIPPLE, MANION, and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

MANION, Circuit Judge.

Mary Forrest filed suit on behalf of herself and a putative class against Universal Savings Bank, N.A. ("Universal") asserting that Universal had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., by obtaining her credit information for an impermissible purpose. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, and Universal then filed a motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge granted Universal's motion before a class was certified, and the case was dismissed. Forrest appeals, and we AFFIRM.

I.

Universal Savings Bank, N.A. ("Universal") sent Mary Forrest a letter with other materials notifying her that she was pre-qualified for a Visa credit card with a 10.99% variable annual percentage rate, no annual fee, and a credit line up to $15,000. The letter also stated that Forrest was qualified to receive a Dell c/o Dimension c/o 3000 desktop computer, or a comparable or upgraded model, with the card when she "transfer[ed] $5,000 of qualifying balances" and "maintained a balance of $3,500 for at least 18 months" on the card. In the case that Forrest did not have $5,000 to transfer to the credit card, she could request up to $2,500 in cash advances to meet the $5,000 minimum balance. Failure to maintain a $3,500 balance for the designated time period would result in a one-time $500 fee.

In addition to the specific information regarding fees and rate information set out in the letter, the enclosed printed materials also detailed the proposal:

Upfront Rewards c/o and Balance Transfer Information. To establish an account and be eligible for an Upfront Reward c/o, you must transfer qualifying balances of at least $5,000. You may also combine qualifying balance transfers of at least $2,500 with a special account opening advance of up to $2,500 to bring your balances up to $5,000. If your balance falls below $3,500 at any time during the first 18 months after your account is open, you will be in default and your account will be assessed a one-time fee of $500 (early pay-down fee). See also the TERMS OF OFFER below.

Finally, the printed material stated that "[i]n making this Offer to you, we used credit information about you" to determine that "you satisfied the credit eligibility requirements for the credit product offered

507 F.3d 542

in this mailing. If we determine at the time you respond to the offer that you no longer satisfy the credit eligibility requirements that we previously established and you previously met, we may not extend credit to you."

Forrest did not submit an application to receive Universal's Visa card; rather, she filed suit alleging that Universal willfully violated the FCRA by obtaining her credit information without a permissible purpose because its letter did not make a firm offer of credit. Forrest attached to her complaint a copy of Universal's letter and materials. In response to Forrest's complaint, Universal filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) asserting that it had provided Forrest with a firm offer of credit because the letter disclosed the minimum opening credit line of $5,000, offered something of value, and permissibly conditioned the offer of credit on the consumer meeting pre-established credit and income criteria. Forrest responded that her complaint stated a claim under the FCRA because Universal's letter did not set forth a minimum amount of credit. The district court granted Universal's motion concluding that Universal had extended a firm offer of credit for the reason that the letter clearly stated that it was offering a line of credit, the FCRA does not require that a minimum credit amount must be offered, and the card itself had value. The case was dismissed, and Forrest appeals.

II.

We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Payton v. County of Carroll, 473 F.3d 845, 847 (7th Cir.2007) (citations omitted). Taking all facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construing all inferences in the plaintiff's favor, we review the complaint and all exhibits attached to the complaint. Massey v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 464 F.3d 642, 645 (7th Cir.2006) (citations omitted). Where an exhibit and the complaint conflict, the exhibit typically controls. Id. A court is not bound by the party's characterization of an exhibit and may independently examine and form its own opinions about the document. McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). "A complaint should only be dismissed if there is no set of facts, even hypothesized, that could...