McIvor v. Credit Control Servs., Inc.

• Citation: 773 F.3d 909
• Decision Date: 04 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 14–1164.,14–1164.
• Parties: Sarah McIVOR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC., doing business as Credit Collection Services, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

773 F.3d 909

Sarah McIVOR, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC., doing business as Credit Collection Services, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 14–1164.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 6, 2014.
Filed: Dec. 4, 2014.

773 F.3d 911

Richard John Rubin, argued Santa Fe, NM, (Jonathan Lester Robert Drewes and Bennett Hartz, both of Minneapolis, MN; Joanne S. Faulkner of New Haven, CT; and Deepak Gupta, Washington, DC, on the brief), for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Russell S. Ponessa, argued Minneapolis, MN, (Ashley M. DeMinck, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for Defendant–Appellee.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Sarah McIvor filed a complaint in the District of Minnesota alleging that Credit Control Services (Credit Control) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

773 F.3d 912

(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. McIvor alleged that she disputed a debt to Credit Control by making an online report to consumer reporting agency TransUnion, that TransUnion contacted Credit Control to investigate the dispute, and that Credit Control failed to report the debt as disputed when it responded to TransUnion's inquiry. The district court¹ granted judgment on the pleadings to Credit Control. McIvor appeals. We affirm.

According to her amended complaint, McIvor used TransUnion's online system on April 2, 2013 to dispute a $242 debt alleged against her by Credit Control. McIvor reported to TransUnion, “Creditor agreed to remove this account from my file. This account is settled.” TransUnion reported McIvor's dispute to Credit Control “as part of its reinvestigation required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ” McIvor's complaint alleged that Credit Control then “provided updated credit information regarding the Debt to [TransUnion] on April 20, 2013 without stating that [she] had disputed it,” and TransUnion “in turn verified the Debt to [McIvor] on April 21, 2013.” McIvor attached exhibits to the complaint showing screenshots of the investigation request she submitted to TransUnion on April 2, her updated credit file dated April 20, and the resolution summary TransUnion provided her on April 21. She claimed that Credit Control's violation “makes it more difficult for Consumer to seek and receive funding.”

The complaint alleges that Credit Control violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8), which provides:

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

* * * * * *

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

According to the complaint, Credit Control violated this statute “by communicating credit information regarding the Debt to [TransUnion] without indicating that [McIvor] had disputed it, thereby conveying false credit information.”

After Credit Control answered the complaint, McIvor moved for summary judgment and Credit Control responded with a motion for judgment on the pleadings. After a hearing on these motions, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings to Credit Control. The court determined that the statute required McIvor to allege that Credit Control's communication with TransUnion was both “false, deceptive, or misleading” and “in connection with the collection of any debt.” Because the complaint did not plausibly allege either requirement, McIvor did not state a claim for a violation of § 1692e. The court stated that “the communication at issue in no way exemplifies the abusive behavior or false or misleading practices that Congress had in mind when it enacted the FDCPA,” and it concluded that judgment on the pleadings was warranted. McIvor appeals.

We review the grant of judgment on the pleadings de novo, viewing the facts in McIvor's complaint as true and granting all reasonable inferences in her favor. Poehl v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 528 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir.2008). We

773 F.3d 913

apply “the same standard as when we review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),” Packard v. Darveau, 759 F.3d 897, 900 (8th Cir.2014) (quotation omitted), and the “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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quotation omitted).

The FDCPA was enacted “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors [and] to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). Congress sought to prevent abusive practices including “threats of violence; ... the publishing of ‘shame lists'; harassing or anonymous telephone calls; impersonating a government official or attorney; ... obtaining information under false pretenses; [and] collecting more than is legally owing.” S.Rep. No. 95–382, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1698 (1977). Individual consumers like McIvor may sue under the act and may recover actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000, attorney fees, and costs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a).

McIvor claimed that Credit Control violated the prohibition in 15 U.S.C. § 1692e against using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” The district court read the statute to require a complaint to allege that a debt collector's action was both “false, deceptive, or misleading” and “in connection with the collection of any debt.” We agree, and McIvor does not challenge this determination on appeal. She instead argues that the district court erred in concluding her complaint insufficiently alleged that Credit Control's statement to TransUnion met these requirements.

McIvor argues that Credit Control's verification of the debt was “false, deceptive, or misleading” because Credit Control was told the debt was disputed but did not relay that...