Karpinski v. CFX Mortgage

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 20, 1997
• Docket: CV-97-443-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

Karpinski v. CFX Mortgage CV-97-443-JD 10/20/97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Peter Karpinski

v. Civil No. 97-443-JD

CFX Mortgage

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff Peter Karpinski has brought suit against

CFX Mortgage ("CFX") alleging that CFX "willfully and maliciously

destroyed Plaintiff's good credit by reporting false and

inaccurate information to the credit bureaus . . . thus causing

the loss of business and credit for Plaintiff" in violation of

The Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1666-1666j. (Document

no. 1, and civil cover sheet). The complaint is before me

pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(1) to determine whether this court has

subject matter jurisdiction over the action. For the reasons

stated below, I find that this court has subject matter

jurisdiction.

In reviewing a pro se complaint, a district court is

obligated to liberally construe the pleading, "however inartfully

pleaded." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. C t . 285,

292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Simmons v. Dickhaut, 804 F.2d 182,

184 (1st Cir. 1986). The intention of this solicitous review is

to insure that pro se pleadings are given "fair and meaningful"

consideration. Matzker v. Herr, 748 F.2d 1142, 1146 (7th Cir. 1984); see also Eveland v. Director of C.I.A., 843 F.2d 46, 49

(1st Cir. 1988) (pro se status requires a court to hold pleadings

to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by

attorneys). If, during the course of a court's solicitous

review, "there is any foundation of plausibility to the federal

claim [then] federal jurisdiction exists . . 13B Wright,

Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction 2d

§ 3564 (2d ed. 1984).

Here, Plaintiff's very slender complaint alleges a violation

of The Fair Credit Billing Act ("FCBA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1666-1666j.

FCBA is a portion of the Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1601 et seg. Taking the plaintiff's allegations as true,

defendant's actions may constitute a violation of FCBA, since

reporting "false and inaccurate information to [] credit bureaus"

would run afoul of 15 U.S.C. § 1666a, which regulates the

circumstances under which a creditor may report an obligor as

delinquent to a third party. A violation of FCBA creates a cause

of action in the federal courts. See Saunders v. Ameritrust of

Cincinnati, 587 F. Supp. 896 (S.D. Oh. 1984) (consumer has cause

of action against creditor under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1637, 1666 and

1666a where creditor reports to credit bureau that consumer's

account is delinquent after account has been paid in full and

where creditor fails to send periodic statements to consumer).

2 This is, therefore, an action arising under the laws of the

United States, and this court has subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Consequently, I find that plaintiff has properly invoked

this court's subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk's Office is

ordered to issue plaintiff the necessary summonses, see LR

4.3(d)(1), and Mr. Karpinski is authorized to effectuate service

of process, within 120 days, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.

4. Service shall include copies of the complaint (document no.

1) and of this order. Defendants shall then answer or otherwise

plead within 20 days from the date of service. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a) (2) .

Mr. Karpinski is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which

requires that every pleading, written motion, notice and similar

paper be served on defendants, which service shall be made by

mailing the document to the defendants' attorney(s).

SO ORDERED.

James R. Muirhead United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 20, 1997

cc: Peter Karpinski, pro se