Nora Margarita Puentes Carrillo v. Credit Acceptance Corporation

Background

Puentes Carrillo alleged that her brother asked her to help with financing for a vehicle purchase. She told him and an employee of MTZ Auto Sales that she would not agree to sign anything until she reviewed the paperwork. She provided some requested personal information but said she did not authorize processing the financing before seeing the paperwork.

Two days later, Puentes Carrillo alleged, her brother and his girlfriend, who went by the name Roxana D. Roxana, purchased a Cadillac. Puentes Carrillo alleged that Roxana forged her signature as a co-buyer and obtained financing through Credit Acceptance Corporation (CAC) using Puentes Carrillo’s identity. Puentes Carrillo said she was not present, had not reviewed financing documents, and had not agreed to co-sign.

After Roxana made payments for almost one year and then defaulted, CAC contacted Puentes Carrillo about the loan. She told CAC that the loan resulted from identity fraud and that she had not agreed to the financing. She alleged that CAC did not investigate her statements. She later reported the identity theft to the Renville County Sheriff’s Department.

Claim and Motion

Puentes Carrillo brought one claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b). She alleged that CAC, as a company that supplied information to credit-reporting agencies, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after the agencies notified CAC that she disputed the reported debt. She alleged damages including harm to her credit rating, out-of-pocket expenses, and emotional stress.

CAC moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege an FCRA violation because its allegations were conclusory and lacked specific supporting facts.

Court’s Reasoning

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly state a claim for relief. The court explained that an FCRA information supplier must investigate disputed information after a credit-reporting agency provides notice of the dispute. The investigation must be reasonable. If the supplier determines that information is inaccurate, incomplete, or cannot be verified, it must modify, delete, or permanently block the information.

The court found that Puentes Carrillo’s dispute specifically identified the reported debt as fraudulent and alleged that her signature had been forged. Her amended complaint also alleged that she had explained the fraud to CAC, provided examples of her signature and her driver’s license, and pointed out that they looked different from the signatures on the auto-sale documents.

The court further relied on allegations that CAC failed to review relevant information, contact the MTZ Auto Sales employee or others at the dealership, determine whether Roxana was a real person, or otherwise investigate before verifying the account to the credit-reporting agencies. Taken as true and viewed in Puentes Carrillo’s favor, those allegations plausibly indicated that CAC had information available for investigation but chose not to investigate.

The court did not consider the sale contract because it was not part of the pleadings and the authenticity of the signatures could not be decided at this stage. The court also did not consider the contents of the police report because doing so would have required converting the dismissal motion into a motion for summary judgment and weighing the credibility of statements in that report.

Disposition

The court denied CAC’s motion to dismiss. The ruling allowed Puentes Carrillo’s FCRA claim to proceed beyond the pleading stage, but it did not decide whether CAC ultimately violated the FCRA or whether Puentes Carrillo will prevail.