Manzano v. Credit Control, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-06013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Manzano v. Credit Control, Judge Carter granted Credit Control’s motion to dismiss without prejudice because the complaint lacked facts supporting damages or willfulness.
Donald Addison Manzano and Credit Control LLC; the dismissal was without prejudice, and Manzano was allowed 21 days to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In Manzano v. Credit Control, Donald Addison Manzano alleged that Credit Control obtained his Experian credit report twice without a permissible purpose, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The court ruled that Manzano did not allege actual damages needed for a negligence claim. It also found that his statements about Credit Control’s willfulness were conclusory and lacked facts showing that the company knowingly or recklessly violated the law.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Credit Control’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court allowed Manzano to file an amended complaint within 21 days.
The detailed version
- Manzano v. Credit Control, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-06013
- Andrew Carter
- Sept. 27, 2024
Background
Donald Addison Manzano alleged that he reviewed his Experian consumer credit report in June 2023 and found an unauthorized inquiry from Credit Control LLC dated November 21, 2022. He later reviewed the report again on April 24, 2024, and found another inquiry from Credit Control dated December 22, 2023.
Manzano alleged that he asked Credit Control’s lawyer why the company had reviewed his report but was not told the reason. He also alleged that he had not initiated a consumer credit transaction, had no account, and had no outstanding contractual obligation with Credit Control. Based on those allegations, he claimed that Credit Control violated Section 1681b of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by obtaining his report without a permissible purpose or other lawful basis. He described the conduct as willful, abusive, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful.
Court’s Analysis
Credit Control moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a plaintiff must allege both that the defendant obtained or used the credit report for an impermissible purpose and that the violation was negligent or willful.
The court held that the amended complaint did not allege any actual damages. As a result, the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims could not proceed on a negligence theory. The court also found that the amended complaint contained conclusory statements about willfulness but did not provide facts showing that Credit Control knew it lacked a permissible purpose or recklessly disregarded that legal requirement. The allegation that Manzano had no account with Credit Control did not establish the company’s state of mind, because the conduct could have been unintentional.
Disposition
The court granted Credit Control LLC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court stated that Manzano may file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. signed the order on September 27, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.