Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A.

Background

Quintin Ballentine, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Credit One Bank, N.A. He alleged that Credit One issued him a credit card with a $500 limit in 2021, that he used the available credit and made payments, and that he paid the balance in full in 2022. He alleged that he then received letters showing a balance twice the credit limit and stating that he owed fees. He also alleged that Credit One reported to consumer reporting agencies that he had never paid the balance and that the matter went to collections. He invoked the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, and sought $133,000 in damages.

Court’s analysis

Because Ballentine was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek relief from an immune defendant, and must also dismiss when subject-matter jurisdiction is absent. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

For the FDCPA claim, the court held that the allegations described Credit One as the creditor that issued and originated the account. Creditors generally are not subject to the FDCPA when collecting their own debts, so Ballentine failed to state an FDCPA claim against Credit One.

The court also considered allegations that appeared to concern the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) provisions. Those allegations did not identify the disputed charges or fees in sufficient detail and did not allege that Ballentine notified Credit One of a billing error as required for an FCBA claim. The court therefore found that he failed to state a claim under TILA or the FCBA.

Although Ballentine did not invoke the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the court considered it because he alleged that Credit One furnished information to consumer reporting agencies. The court explained that consumers cannot privately sue under the FCRA provision prohibiting the furnishing of inaccurate information. A consumer can sue under a different provision requiring a furnisher to investigate after receiving notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency. Ballentine did not allege that he disputed the information with a reporting agency, that the agency notified Credit One, or that Credit One failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. He therefore failed to state that claim as pleaded.

The court found the alleged basis for diversity jurisdiction incomplete because Ballentine had not pleaded facts establishing Credit One’s citizenship under the rule applicable to national banks. It also found that Ballentine had not identified which state laws Credit One allegedly violated or what conduct violated them. The court did not decide the potential preemption issue because no specific state-law claims had been identified.

Disposition

The court granted Ballentine leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. The court directed him to provide relevant people’s names and titles, relevant events and approximate dates and locations, his injuries, and the relief sought. If he asserts an FCRA investigation claim, the court identified facts he must address, including what was reported, whether he disputed it with a reporting agency, whether Credit One investigated, and why the investigation was deficient.

The order did not dismiss the complaint immediately. It stated that if Ballentine failed to file a timely amended complaint and could not show good cause, the federal claims would be dismissed for failure to state a claim and the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.