Green v. Americollect, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 4:20-cv-01096-SRC |
| Parties | CASSIE GREEN, Plaintiff, v. AMERICOLLECT, INC. et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Plaintiff Cassie Green disputed the accuracy of an Americollect tradeline appearing on her credit report with an unspecified party sometime before February 17, 2020. Defendant Americollect, Inc. reported the dispute to the credit reporting agencies and Green's credit report included an "account in dispute" notation next to the Americollect tradeline. Green later decided that she no longer disputed the tradeline and sent a letter to Equifax requesting that the "account in dispute" notation appearing on her credit report be removed. Americollect did not remove the notation, and Green seeks to hold Americollect liable for failing to update her credit report to reflect that she no longer disputed the debt. Americollect maintains that its failure to remove the notation following Green's so-called "dispute of the dispute" did not violate either the Fair Credit Reporting Act or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
"Congress enacted 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 (2007) (citations omitted). To accomplish these goals, the FCRA "places responsibilities on both consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of information . . . ." McIvor v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 773 F.3d 909, 915 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i, 1681s-2.). As relevant here, when a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of information appearing on her credit report directly to a credit reporting agency, the agency, within 30 days, must "conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file" if it is "found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified." 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A), (5)(A); see also McIvor, 773 F.3d at 915. If, after receiving this dispute from the consumer, the credit reporting agency contacts the "furnisher of information" as part of this reinvestigation process, the furnisher must "conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information" and report the results to the credit reporting agency. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b); see also McIvor, 773 F.3d at 915. Consumers may bring claims for negligent or willful violations of these investigative obligations. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o; McIvor, 773 F.3d at 915.
Green filed suit against numerous parties, including Americollect, for purportedly violating the FCRA and FDCPA. Doc. 1. In her first-amended complaint, Green asserts three counts against Americollect: 1) negligent violation of 15 U.S.C § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA; 2) willful violation of 15 U.S.C § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA; and 3) violation of 15 U.S.C § 1692(e) of the FDCPA. Doc. 46 at ¶¶ 22-33, 110-16. After answering the amended complaint, Doc. 55, Americollect filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. 67. With Green having filed her opposition, Doc. 70, and Americollect filing its reply, Doc. 73, the motion is now ripe for review.
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that after the pleadings are closed, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. A motion under Rule 12(c) is determined by the same standards applied to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA, 623 F.3d 1229, 1233 n.3 (8th Cir. 2010). To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff need not provide specific facts in support of his allegations, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam), but "must include sufficient factual information to provide the 'grounds' on which the claim rests, and to raise a right to relief above a speculative level." Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 & n.3). This obligation requires a plaintiff to plead "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint "must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Id. at 562 (quoted case omitted). This standard "simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim or element]." Id. at 556.
On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, even if it appears that "actual proof of those facts is improbable," id. at 556, and reviews the complaint to determine whether its allegations show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 550 U.S. at 555-56; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The principle that a court must acceptas true all of the allegations contained in a complaint does not apply to legal conclusions, however. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (). Although legal conclusions can provide the framework for a complaint, the pleader must support them with factual allegations. Id. at 679. The court reviews the plausibility of the plaintiff's claim "as a whole, not the plausibility of each individual allegation." Zoltek Corp. v. Structural Polymer Group, 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.4 (8th Cir. 2010).
"When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings (or a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), the court generally must ignore materials outside the pleadings, but it may consider some materials that are part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint as well as materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings." Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted); see also Cent. Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, Mo., 589 F. Supp. 85, 91 (W.D. Mo. 1984) ().
Green obtained her Equifax credit disclosure on February 17, 2020 and noticed the Americollect tradeline reporting a notation of "account[] in dispute." Doc. 46 at ¶ 12. Green no longer disputes the Americollect tradeline and submitted a letter to Equifax on March 24, 2020 requesting that the notation of "accounts in dispute" be removed. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13. Equifax forwarded this letter to Americollect and Americollect received the letter. Id. at ¶ 14. After not receiving any investigation results from Equifax, Green obtained her credit disclosure on April28, 2020,1 which showed Americollect "failed or refused to remove the notation of 'accounts in dispute.'" Id. at ¶ 15.
In Count I, Green alleges that Americollect violated 15 U.S.C § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA by negligently failing to conduct a proper investigation of her dispute "[a]fter being informed by Equifax of [her] consumer dispute of the erroneous notation." Id. at ¶ 23. Green further alleges that "Americollect negligently failed to review all relevant information available to it and provided by Equifax in conducting its reinvestigation as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) and failed to direct Equifax to . . . remove the notation of 'account in dispute."' Id. at ¶ 24. Green alleges that Americollect's failure to perform its duties under the FCRA caused her to suffer "damages, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation, and embarrassment." Id. at ¶ 26. In Count II, Green alleges that Americollect's purported violations of the FCRA were willful. Id. at ¶¶ 29-33. Lastly, in Count XV, Green alleges that Americollect violated 15 U.S.C § 1692(e) of the FDCPA by reporting information that it knew to be false. Id. at ¶¶ 110-116.
The motion turns on the possibility of a furnisher having conflicting duties under the FCRA. On the one hand, if a consumer directly notifies the furnisher that the consumer disputes a debt, the furnisher must report to the credit reporting agencies notice of the dispute. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3). On the other, if a credit reporting agency notifies the furnisher that a consumer disputes a debt, the furnisher must investigate; if the furnisher's investigation reveals either the legitimacy of the consumer's dispute or that the legitimacy of the dispute cannot be verified, the furnisher must modify, delete, or permanently block reporting of the disputed debt. Id. at §1681s-2(b). In other words, if a consumer disputes a debt, the FCRA requires the furnisher to report it as disputed, but a furnisher's own investigation may trigger a duty to delete the reporting of the debt. The question therefore becomes which duty takes precedence.
While the resolution of these conflicting duties may ultimately decide the outcome of this case, the Court cannot reach that question at this stage because Green's allegations only triggered the duties imposed by section 1681s-2(b). Green never alleges that she directly disputed the accuracy of her Americollect tradeline with Americollect, and thus the duties imposed by section 1681s-2(a)(3) were not triggered by Green's complaint. Accordingly, with section 1681s-2(a)(3) not at issue at this stage of the case, the question simply becomes whether Green pleaded sufficient allegations to state a claim under section 1681s-2(b).
As stated above, the FCRA imposes duties on furnishers upon receiving notice of a dispute, see 15 U.S.C. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial