Manzano v. Credit Control, LLC

Background

Donald Addison Manzano alleged that he saw an unauthorized inquiry from Credit Control LLC on his Experian consumer credit report in June 2023. He alleged that the inquiry dated back to November 21, 2022. He later reviewed the report again in April 2024 and saw another inquiry from Credit Control, dating back to December 22, 2023.

Manzano alleged that he did not initiate a consumer credit transaction, have an account, or owe Credit Control a contractual obligation. He also alleged that he contacted Credit Control’s lawyer to ask why the company had reviewed his report but was not told the reason. He claimed that Credit Control violated Section 1681b of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which limits the purposes for which a company may obtain a consumer credit report. He described the alleged conduct as willful, meaning deliberate or carried out with reckless disregard for his rights.

Legal standard

Credit Control moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally valid claim. The court was required to accept well-supported factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in Manzano’s favor, but it did not have to accept conclusory statements or bare recitations of legal requirements.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that a claim under Section 1681b requires allegations that the defendant obtained or used the credit report for an impermissible purpose and that the violation was negligent or willful. For a negligence theory, the plaintiff must allege actual damages. For a willfulness theory, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant consciously disregarded the consumer’s rights or deliberately and purposefully failed to comply with the FCRA.

The court held that the amended complaint did not allege that Manzano suffered actual damages. As a result, his FCRA claims could not proceed on a negligence theory. The court also found that the amended complaint’s allegations of willfulness were conclusory and did not provide facts showing that Credit Control knew it lacked a permissible purpose or recklessly disregarded that requirement. The allegation that Manzano had no account with Credit Control did not establish Credit Control’s state of mind, because the conduct could have been unintentional.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Credit Control’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court permitted Manzano to file an amended complaint by October 22, 2024. The opinion does not state whether he filed another complaint after that deadline.