United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS BY
DEFENDANT MICHIGAN FIRST CREDIT UNION
M. LAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michigan First Credit Union has moved to dismiss a complaint
brought by plaintiff Rishana Tillman under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
The Credit Union argues that the complaint fails to make out
a cause of action under that statute and therefore must be
dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
motion is fully briefed and oral argument will not aid in its
disposition. Therefore, the motion will be decided on the
briefs. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). Because the
complaint states facts supporting a plausible claim under the
FCRA, the motion will be denied.
this is a motion to dismiss, the facts recited below are
stated as they are alleged in the plaintiff's complaint.
Tillman resides in Wayne County, Michigan. She had an account
with Michigan First Credit Union, but her complaint alleges
that it was “charged off and closed, ” and that
she no longer has any payment obligation on the account.
Compl. ¶ 8. Nevertheless, the Credit Union has continued
to report the account to Equifax with a $442 monthly payment
due. The plaintiff contends that the account should be
reported with a monthly payment of $0 since there is no
balance or payment obligation.
2019, Tillman sent a dispute letter to Equifax reporting the
erroneous trade line, and the letter was forwarded to the
Credit Union. However, the Credit Union responded that its
reporting was accurate and refused to correct the report.
then filed her lawsuit in state court in August 2019. Counts
I and II of the complaint plead negligent and willful
violations of the FCRA by the Credit Union due to its alleged
failure properly to investigate the dispute and correct its
reporting. The Credit Union removed it to this Court on
October 1, 2019 and filed its motion to dismiss two days
defendant argues that the plaintiff (1) has not sufficiently
alleged that the trade line is “misleading, ”
because in her complaint she does not identify any creditor
that actually was misled by the reported information, (2)
does not plead any specific facts to identify what relevant
information the defendant “failed to review”
during its allegedly deficient investigation, and (3) does
not plead any specific facts to support the vague allegation
that she suffered emotional damages in the form of
“mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.”
survive a motion to dismiss, 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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547
(2007)). A “claim is facially plausible when a
plaintiff ‘pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.'” Matthew N.
Fulton, DDS, P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., 907 F.3d 948,
951-52 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678). When reviewing the motion, the Court “must
‘construe the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff [and] accept all well-pleaded factual
allegations as true.'” Id. at 951 (quoting
Hill v. Snyder, 878 F.3d 193, 203 (6th Cir. 2017)).
Consideration of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
confined to the pleadings. Jones v. City of
Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).
Assessment of the facial sufficiency of the complaint
ordinarily must be undertaken without resort to matters
outside the pleadings. Wysocki v. Int'l Bus. Mach.
Corp., 607 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 2010).
enacted [the Fair Credit Reporting act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681 et seq., ] ¶ 1970 to ensure fair
and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the
banking system, and protect consumer privacy.”
Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619,
628 (6th Cir. 2018). The FCRA requires consumer credit
reporting agencies to ‘follow reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy of' consumer credit
reports.” Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA,
No. 18-2261, ____ F.3d ____, 2020 WL 35431, at *3 (6th Cir.
Jan. 3, 2020) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)). “The
statute provides consumers with a cause of action if a
consumer reporting agency violates their statutorily created
procedural rights.” Ibid. “Under the
FCRA, those who furnish information to consumer reporting
agencies have two obligations: (1) to provide accurate
information; and (2) to undertake an investigation upon
receipt of a notice of dispute regarding credit information
that is furnished.” Scott v. First Southern
National Bank, 936 F.3d 509, 517 (6th Cir. 2019)
FCRA creates a private right of action for consumers to
enforce the requirement under § 1681s-2(b) that
furnishers of information investigate upon receiving notice
of a dispute, but not the requirement under § 1681s-2(a)
that furnishers of information initially provide accurate
information to consumer reporting agencies.”
Ibid. Thus, “consumers must file a dispute
with a consumer reporting agency to trigger the
furnisher's duty to investigate under §
1681s-2(b).” Ibid. “After receiving
notice of a dispute with regard to the completeness or
accuracy of any information provided by a person to a
consumer reporting agency, ” the reporting entity must:
(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed
(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer
reporting agency pursuant to section ...