Lacey v. TransUnion, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJuly 12, 2021
Docket8:21-cv-00519
StatusUnknown

This text of Lacey v. TransUnion, LLC (Lacey v. TransUnion, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lacey v. TransUnion, LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CRISTINA LACEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:21-cv-519-02-JSS

TRANSUNION, LLC; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE;

Defendants. _____________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Cristina Lacey sues Defendants TransUnion LLC and Wells Fargo Mortgage under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Before the Court today are the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Dkts. 18 and 19; Plaintiff’s responses, Dkts. 20 and 30; and TransUnion’s reply, Dkt. 23. Defendants argue Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the credit report is factually accurate. The credit report at issue in this case is attached as an Appendix at the end of this opinion. After reviewing these motions, the case record, and the opposition briefs filed by Plaintiff, the Court grants the motions and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice because the credit report is not materially misleading. In short, although Defendant Wells Fargo furnished derogatory information about Plaintiff and Defendant TransUnion then used the derogatory information in the credit report, this

information was factually accurate. The credit report is therefore materially accurate to any reasonable commercial reader, and it is not “nonsensical and illogical” to the point of inaccuracy as Plaintiff contends.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff has experienced credit problems. Her credit report during the relevant period shows more adverse accounts than satisfactory accounts. That report, which Plaintiff comments upon and does not object to the undersigned

considering (at least as to TransUnion), is attached to this Order.1 See Appendix. Plaintiff does not contend the report is unauthentic, and it is properly verified. Dkt. 18-1.

1 This entire suit is about Plaintiff’s credit report. But Plaintiff did not attach the report to her Complaint. Instead, TransUnion provided the credit report in its Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 18- 2. In responding to TransUnion, Plaintiff does not object to the Court considering the credit report, and Plaintiff commented on the report without objection in Plaintiff’s response to TransUnion’s motion. Dkt. 20 at 6. In her response to Wells Fargo’s motion, Plaintiff comments on the credit report but then suggests it would be inappropriate for the Court to consider the report as to Wells Fargo because Wells Fargo did not append a copy of the report to its Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 30 at 13–14. Plaintiff also argues that it would not be appropriate to consider the credit report at this stage because a fuller record should first be developed, such as from the automated credit dispute verification form. See Dkt. 30 at 13–14. The Court denies Plaintiff’s arguments. The Court may consider a document attached to a motion to dismiss if the attached document is central to the plaintiff’s claims and is undisputed. See Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002)). Here, Plaintiff’s credit report is central to her claims, and it is the essence of her Complaint. Plaintiff does not contend that her credit report at Dkt. 18-2 is unauthentic. The Court can therefore consider the report when deciding the Motions to Dismiss. The relevant entry of which Plaintiff complains is found on the sixth page. See Appendix at 6. That entry for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage shows Plaintiff

opened her mortgage account with Wells Fargo on March 19, 2009. Id. The account closed on August 7, 2015—the same day the report was last updated. Id. The balance is shown at $0. The remarks state “FORECLOSURE COLLATERAL

SOLD,” which explains why the account was closed and why there is zero balance. The payment history shows monthly payments for the period leading up to closure. This history shows that Plaintiff fell 60 days in arrears in November 2013, but by March 2014 had gotten current. See Appendix at 6. She then stayed current

for five months. Regrettably, she was 30 days late in August 2014, and fell to 60 days late the next month. This delinquency continued, and by March 2015 she fell 90 days late. She corrected it to 60 days late in April 2015. The report states that

she made her last mortgage payment on April 2, 2015. Unfortunately, by then she stopped paying entirely. In June 2015, she was 120 days in arrears. The last reported month was July 2015, during which she was 120 days late. The account then closed the first week in August 2015. The credit report notes that her

maximum delinquency of 120 days as shown in June and August of 2015. If one counts the time from her last payment made until the account closure, it is approximately 120 days. This payment history, the closure of the account, and the

foreclosure are entirely accurate and not in dispute. See Appendix at 6. The report states that the estimated time and month that this item will be removed from Ms. Lacey’s credit history is June 2021.

What Plaintiff disputes, and what Plaintiff asserts creates the cause of action, is one line that states: “Pay Status: account 120 Days Past Due Date.” See id. Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that although the trade line currently reflects a $0

balance: Listing a debt with a $0 balance owed as “120-149 days past due” is nonsensical. If no balance is owed, the consumer cannot be late paying that balance. By continuing to report the account in that fashion, lenders believe the consumer is currently late negatively reflecting on the consumers credit worthiness by impacting the credit score negatively.

Dkt. 1 at ¶ 15. Plaintiff notified TransUnion in August 2020 that she disputed the accuracy of this information. Id. at ¶ 17. She avers that TransUnion notified Defendant Wells Fargo of this dispute. Id. at ¶ 18. According to Plaintiff, had Wells Fargo done a proper investigation, it would have discovered that the payment status was being inaccurately reported by TransUnion. Id. at ¶ 20. As a result of this inaccurate and uncorrected reporting, Plaintiff states she has suffered damage by loss of credit, an impaired ability to purchase and benefit from credit, a chilling effect upon applications for future credit, mental and emotional pain, anguish, and humiliation and embarrassment of credit denial. Id. at ¶ 26. However, Plaintiff does not contend any specific creditor relied upon these entries to her detriment, nor does she cite any specific injury due to this adverse report—one of multiple adverse reports for her.

In Count I, Plaintiff sues TransUnion for willfully violating 15 U.S.C. § 1681(e) and (n) of the FCRA. She alleges TransUnion willfully and recklessly failed to follow proper credit data ascertainment and accurate reporting, as required

by the statute. She also alleges TransUnion failed to note in the credit report that she disputed the accuracy of the information, and that TransUnion failed to delete the information once it was called to the company’s attention. In Count II, Plaintiff sues TransUnion for negligent violation of the FCRA with basically the same

faults and omissions listed in Count I. In Counts III and IV, Plaintiff sues Well Fargo as the furnisher of the faulty credit information, alleging various failures under the FCRA to properly furnish

accurate information, investigate disputes, and correct matters found to be furnished in error. Counts III and IV seek remedies for willful/reckless and negligent violations, respectively.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Neal Horsley v. Gloria Feldt
304 F.3d 1125 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
Odessa Dee Hall v. United Insurance Co. of America
367 F.3d 1255 (Eleventh Circuit, 2004)
Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Michael R. Ray v. Equifax Information Services
327 F. App'x 819 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
578 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc.
29 F.3d 1480 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)
Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
116 F.3d 1364 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lacey v. TransUnion, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacey-v-transunion-llc-flmd-2021.