Spurling v. Equifax Information Services LLC

Background

Dennis Damonn Spurling sued Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union (of Delaware), LLC in New York state court. He alleged that the three consumer-reporting agencies violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the analogous New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (NYFCRA). TransUnion removed the case to federal court.

Spurling alleged that he sent each agency dispute letters identifying eleven or twelve items in his credit file, including addresses, accounts, and employers. He characterized those items as inaccurate or incomplete and alleged that the agencies failed to reinvestigate them, update or delete the information, and prevent the information from being provided to third parties. He claimed damages including out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, reduced credit scores, lost credit opportunities, and difficulties obtaining loans and refinancing.

Motions and Legal Standards

Experian and TransUnion moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally viable claim. Equifax asked to join that motion. Because Equifax had already answered in the state-court action, the court treated Equifax’s request as joining a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court explained that the legal standard for that motion is the same as for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and that failure to state a claim can be raised through a Rule 12(c) motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that an FCRA plaintiff must identify the specific credit-report information that is inaccurate and explain why it is inaccurate. Spurling listed disputed addresses, accounts, and employers but did not provide facts explaining how or why those items were incorrect. The court found those allegations insufficient to state claims under the FCRA.

The court also held that Spurling failed to state a claim based on inadequate reinvestigation. A plaintiff must allege facts indicating that a consumer-reporting agency failed to follow reasonable reinvestigation procedures. The court found that the complaint contained no such facts.

Because the language of the NYFCRA and FCRA is substantially similar, the court applied the same reasoning to the New York-law claims and dismissed the complaint to the extent it asserted claims under either statute.

Disposition

The court granted Equifax’s Motion to Join the Motion to Dismiss and granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. The court also granted Spurling leave to amend and permitted him to file an amended complaint within 28 days, by February 5, 2025. The opinion states that if no amended complaint was filed by that date, the court would direct entry of judgment for the defendants and close the case. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at Dockets 8 and 10.