UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
MARGARET MARCELUS BENS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:26-cv-438-SPC-KRH
NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant National Credit Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 19). Plaintiff Margaret Marcelus Bens opposes (Doc. 24). For the below reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND National Credit Systems, Inc. (“National Credit”) provides information to consumer reporting agencies, including Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax. (Doc. 1 ¶ 5). In providing this information, National Credit reported that Magaret Marcelus Bens owed a $8,907 balance. (Id. ¶ 6). This balance, however, was inconsistent with the amounts alleged in the relevant underlying landlord-tenant dispute, which reflected outstanding balances of $6,642.32 and $7,310.32. (Id. ¶ 7). Bens disputed the $8,907 balance with Experian, TransUnion, and
Equifax. (Id. ¶ 9). The disputes specifically noted the inconsistencies between the balance reported by National Credit and the state court action. (Id.) Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax then notified National Credit of the dispute. (Id. ¶ 10).
After investigating, National Credit sent Bens a written response indicating that the account was “verified as accurate.” (Id. ¶¶ 11, 14–15). This ultimately caused Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax to continue reporting the incorrect $8,907 balance, which still appears on Bens’ credit report. (Id.
¶¶ 12–13). This inaccurate report harmed Bens’ creditworthiness and caused denial or less favorable terms of credit opportunities, out-of-pocket losses, and emotional distress. (Id. ¶ 16). Bens now brings this lawsuit against National Credit alleging negligent
and willful noncompliance with the Fair Credit Report Act (“FCRA”). LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint needs sufficient factual
allegations, accepted as true, to show the claim is plausible on its face. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Venequip Mach. Sales Corp., 147 F.4th 1341, 1346 (11th Cir. 2025). To be facially plausible, the plaintiff must plead facts that permit a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Id. at 1347. Courts draw on their judicial experience and common sense to determine whether a complaint states a plausible claim. Id. The Court conducts a two-step process for a motion to dismiss. First, it determines what must be pled for each cause of action. Id. Next, the Court
considers whether the well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Id. Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than counseled pleadings and are therefore liberally construed. Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd.,
760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, this liberal construction does not entitle a court to serve as de facto counsel to a pro se party or rewrite deficient pleadings. See id. at 1168-69. Pro se litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). DISCUSSION “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). The FCRA “imposes two duties on furnishers.” Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 98 F.4th 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 2024). First, “furnishers have a duty not to
furnish information about a consumer to a reporting agency if the furnisher ‘knows or has reasonable cause to believe’ that the information is inaccurate.” Id. (quoting Milgram v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 72 F.4th 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2023) (per curiam)). Second, “furnishers must take certain actions once
notified [either by the consumer or a credit reporting agency] that a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of his or her furnished information.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)). When the furnisher is notified of a dispute, “the furnisher must (1)
conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (2) review all relevant information provided by the [consumer reporting agency]; and (3) report the results of the investigation to the [consumer reporting agency].” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Felts v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 893 F.3d 1305,
1312 (11th Cir. 2018); 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)). Where the information disputed is “incomplete, inaccurate, or cannot be verified, the furnisher must either modify, delete, or permanently block reporting of that information.” Id. (quoting Felts, 893 F.3d at 1312; 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E)). The furnisher
must also “report those results to all other [consumer reporting agencies.]” Id. (quoting Felts, 893 F.3d at 1312; 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D)). “To succeed on an FCRA claim, a plaintiff must establish (at least) two things.” Id. at 1367 (quoting Milgram, 72 F.4th at 1218). First, they must
“identify[] inaccurate or incomplete information that the furnisher provided to the reporting agency[,] [a]nd second, to prove an investigation was unreasonable, [they] must point out ‘some facts the furnisher could have uncovered that establish that the reported information was, in fact, inaccurate
or incomplete.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Felts, 893 F.3d at 1313). National Credit first argues that Bens failed to provide allegations “about the underlying debt[,] why it was disputed[,] [or] why the reported balance was false.” (Doc. 19 at 4–5). Bens contends that National Credit
mischaracterizes her claims and that she properly alleges “objective facts capable of documentary verification.” (Doc. 24 at 2). As a prefatory matter, Bens presents new factual allegations and documents in her response (Doc. 24). Since these were not in the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Court does not consider
them for the present motion. The FCRA only provides a cause of action where the report is “factually incorrect, objectively likely to mislead its intended user, or both[.]” See Holden, 98 F.4th at 1367-68 (quoting Erickson v. First Advantage Background Servs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
MARGARET MARCELUS BENS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:26-cv-438-SPC-KRH
NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant National Credit Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 19). Plaintiff Margaret Marcelus Bens opposes (Doc. 24). For the below reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted. BACKGROUND National Credit Systems, Inc. (“National Credit”) provides information to consumer reporting agencies, including Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax. (Doc. 1 ¶ 5). In providing this information, National Credit reported that Magaret Marcelus Bens owed a $8,907 balance. (Id. ¶ 6). This balance, however, was inconsistent with the amounts alleged in the relevant underlying landlord-tenant dispute, which reflected outstanding balances of $6,642.32 and $7,310.32. (Id. ¶ 7). Bens disputed the $8,907 balance with Experian, TransUnion, and
Equifax. (Id. ¶ 9). The disputes specifically noted the inconsistencies between the balance reported by National Credit and the state court action. (Id.) Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax then notified National Credit of the dispute. (Id. ¶ 10).
After investigating, National Credit sent Bens a written response indicating that the account was “verified as accurate.” (Id. ¶¶ 11, 14–15). This ultimately caused Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax to continue reporting the incorrect $8,907 balance, which still appears on Bens’ credit report. (Id.
¶¶ 12–13). This inaccurate report harmed Bens’ creditworthiness and caused denial or less favorable terms of credit opportunities, out-of-pocket losses, and emotional distress. (Id. ¶ 16). Bens now brings this lawsuit against National Credit alleging negligent
and willful noncompliance with the Fair Credit Report Act (“FCRA”). LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint needs sufficient factual
allegations, accepted as true, to show the claim is plausible on its face. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Venequip Mach. Sales Corp., 147 F.4th 1341, 1346 (11th Cir. 2025). To be facially plausible, the plaintiff must plead facts that permit a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Id. at 1347. Courts draw on their judicial experience and common sense to determine whether a complaint states a plausible claim. Id. The Court conducts a two-step process for a motion to dismiss. First, it determines what must be pled for each cause of action. Id. Next, the Court
considers whether the well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief. Id. Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than counseled pleadings and are therefore liberally construed. Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd.,
760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, this liberal construction does not entitle a court to serve as de facto counsel to a pro se party or rewrite deficient pleadings. See id. at 1168-69. Pro se litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). DISCUSSION “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). The FCRA “imposes two duties on furnishers.” Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Inc., 98 F.4th 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 2024). First, “furnishers have a duty not to
furnish information about a consumer to a reporting agency if the furnisher ‘knows or has reasonable cause to believe’ that the information is inaccurate.” Id. (quoting Milgram v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 72 F.4th 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2023) (per curiam)). Second, “furnishers must take certain actions once
notified [either by the consumer or a credit reporting agency] that a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of his or her furnished information.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)). When the furnisher is notified of a dispute, “the furnisher must (1)
conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (2) review all relevant information provided by the [consumer reporting agency]; and (3) report the results of the investigation to the [consumer reporting agency].” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Felts v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 893 F.3d 1305,
1312 (11th Cir. 2018); 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)). Where the information disputed is “incomplete, inaccurate, or cannot be verified, the furnisher must either modify, delete, or permanently block reporting of that information.” Id. (quoting Felts, 893 F.3d at 1312; 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E)). The furnisher
must also “report those results to all other [consumer reporting agencies.]” Id. (quoting Felts, 893 F.3d at 1312; 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D)). “To succeed on an FCRA claim, a plaintiff must establish (at least) two things.” Id. at 1367 (quoting Milgram, 72 F.4th at 1218). First, they must
“identify[] inaccurate or incomplete information that the furnisher provided to the reporting agency[,] [a]nd second, to prove an investigation was unreasonable, [they] must point out ‘some facts the furnisher could have uncovered that establish that the reported information was, in fact, inaccurate
or incomplete.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Felts, 893 F.3d at 1313). National Credit first argues that Bens failed to provide allegations “about the underlying debt[,] why it was disputed[,] [or] why the reported balance was false.” (Doc. 19 at 4–5). Bens contends that National Credit
mischaracterizes her claims and that she properly alleges “objective facts capable of documentary verification.” (Doc. 24 at 2). As a prefatory matter, Bens presents new factual allegations and documents in her response (Doc. 24). Since these were not in the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Court does not consider
them for the present motion. The FCRA only provides a cause of action where the report is “factually incorrect, objectively likely to mislead its intended user, or both[.]” See Holden, 98 F.4th at 1367-68 (quoting Erickson v. First Advantage Background Servs.
Corp., 981 F.3d 1246, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2020)). Thus, for the report to be actionable, the information in dispute must be “objectively and readily verifiable.” Id. at 1368. The current factual allegations, though modest, are sufficient to
plausibly state that the information in dispute is factually incorrect. Bens alleges the $8,907 balance cannot be accurate because the amount derives from an underlying landlord-tenant dispute where the landlord alleges the amounts due are $6,642.32 and $7,310.32. This is enough for the sake of a motion to
dismiss to plausibly suggest the information National Credit furnished was factually incorrect.1 National Credit next argues that Bens “alleges in a conclusory fashion that a reasonable investigation would have included reviewing publicly
available court records and would have revealed inconsistencies in the debt amount.” (Doc. 19 at 6). Bens, however, contends that she has sufficiently alleged National Credit failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, because
1 It is unclear if the underlying dispute is resolved. In any event, this case is distinct enough from Holden to suggest the information is “objectively and readily verifiable” as the underlying dispute likely requires a straightforward application of law to facts. See Holden, 98 F.4th at 1368. they failed to review documents provided by her. (Doc. 24 at 4). To determine “[w]hether a furnisher’s investigation is reasonable []
depend[s] in part on the status of the furnisher—as an original creditor, a collection agency collecting on behalf of the original creditor, a debt buyer, or a down-the-line-buyer—and on the quality of documentation available to the furnisher.” See Felts, 893 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Hinkle v. Midland Credit
Mgmnt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295, 1301–02 (11th Cir. 2016)). When the investigation concludes that the disputed information was verified as accurate, “the question of whether the furnisher behaved reasonably will turn on whether the furnisher acquired sufficient evidence to support the conclusion
that the information was true.” Id. (quoting Hinkle, 827 F.3d at 1301–02). Bens failed to allege any facts to support a reasonable inference that National Credit failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. First, there are no allegations about the status of National Credit (e.g., original creditor, debt
buyer, etc.). Next, while Bens explains that she filed a dispute with the credit reporting agencies, she fails to allege the documents she provided to the credit reporting agencies or what information National Credit had during its investigation. Instead, Bens only claims that National Credit “failed to
conduct a reasonable investigation[,]” which is insufficient to support a plausible claim for relief. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Without facts sufficient to plausibly allege that National Credit conducted an unreasonable investigation, Bens also fails to allege facts that would show willful non-compliance with FCRA. See Burr, 551 U.S 47, 59-60 (defining “willfully” as “both knowing and reckless disregard of the law’). Therefore, Bens currently fails to state either of her FCRA claims and the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint on or before August 25, 2026. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the case being dismissed without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 11, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of record