Viverette v. Experian

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-06989
StatusUnknown

This text of Viverette v. Experian (Viverette v. Experian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Viverette v. Experian, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ONTIA VIVERETTE, Plaintiff, 21-CV-6989 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND EXPERIAN, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Onita Viverette, of the Bronx, New York, filed this pro se action. She sues Experian, a credit reporting agency, alleging that Experian violated her rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). By order dated February 2, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is

entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action using the Court’s general complaint form, and she invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. In the section which asks Plaintiff which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff writes, “I have been violated under the Fair Credit Report Act. 15 USC Chapter 41.” (ECF No. 2 at 2.) In her statement of claim, Plaintiff alleges the following: I was violated by Experian under the following laws: 15 USC 1681b(a)(2), 15 USC 1681(a)(4), 15 USC 1681 (a)(1), 15 USC 6802a, 15 USC 6802b, 15 USC 1681a(b), 15 USC 1681d(d)(4), 15 USC 1681e(b), 15 USC 1681i(a)(5), 15 USC 1681a (Exclusions), 18 USC 242, and Identity theft. I have been affected financially, emotionally, and under extreme stress due to Experian violating me as a consumer as defined by 15 USC 1693a(3). (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to have Experian “correct the fraud the[y] inserted on my consumer report and $275,000 in monetary damages.” (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION Congress enacted the FCRA to ensure that consumer reporting agencies follow fair and equitable procedures in “regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of consumer credit information.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b). The FCRA therefore imposes a variety of requirements on consumer reporting agencies to verify the accuracy of credit information in general and in response to consumer disputes. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b to 1681p. The statute

creates a private right of action against consumer reporting agencies for “negligent or willful violation of any duty imposed by the statute.” Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 56 F.3d 469, 473 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o). Plaintiff’s complaint implicates the FCRA’s requirements that a consumer reporting agency follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy in a consumer’s credit report, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and investigate disputed information, §§ 1681i(a)(1)(A), 1681i(a)(5)(B). The FCRA requires that consumer reporting agencies “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” in a consumer’s credit report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). To succeed on a claim that a consumer reporting agency failed to follow proper compliance procedures under Section 1681e(b), a plaintiff must show that:

(1) the consumer reporting agency was negligent or willful in that it failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of its credit report; (2) the consumer reporting agency reported inaccurate information about the plaintiff; (3) the plaintiff was injured; and (4) the consumer reporting agency’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. Wimberly v. Experian Info. Solutions, No. 1:18-CV-6058, 2021 WL 326972, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2021) (citation omitted); see e.g., Phipps v. Experian, No. 20-CV-3368, 2020 WL 3268488, *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020); Anderson v. Experian, No. 19-CV-8833, 2019 WL 6324179, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2019).

If a consumer notifies a consumer reporting agency of an inaccuracy in the information that agency reports, the agency must conduct a “reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). If, after reinvestigation, a consumer reporting agency determines that the disputed information is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, the agency must delete or modify the disputed item of information. 15 U.S.C.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Houston v. TRW Information Services, Inc.
707 F. Supp. 689 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Viverette v. Experian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viverette-v-experian-nysd-2022.