Cupp v. Lexisnexis Solutions

Background

Pro se plaintiff Ronald Cupp sued, among others, LexisNexis Solutions, LexisNexis Risk Data Management, Inc., and LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC, which the opinion collectively calls LexisNexis. Cupp alleged that LexisNexis furnished inaccurate information about his bankruptcy proceedings to other credit-reporting agencies. He asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), and California law for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Cupp alleged that he disputed the bankruptcy information with LexisNexis in January 2023. He further alleged that Trans Union told him it had received information about his bankruptcy from LexisNexis, and that LexisNexis later said it could not authenticate the information or provide details of its reinvestigation. Cupp alleged that he was denied a $200,000 loan in June 2023 based on inaccurate information from other credit-reporting agencies, which he said had received the information from LexisNexis.

LexisNexis moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that FCRA claims concerning the accuracy of information require a plausible allegation that the information was actually inaccurate. Although Cupp repeatedly described the bankruptcy information as inaccurate, he did not allege what specific information was false or inaccurate. The court declined to treat those general statements as enough. It also took notice of the fact that bankruptcy proceedings had been initiated by “Ronald Vernon Cupp,” while stating that disputed issues in the bankruptcy documents could not be resolved through judicial notice.

The court separately ruled that Cupp did not plausibly allege a claim under FCRA section 1681b because the complaint did not provide facts showing that LexisNexis furnished a consumer report about him. The allegation that other parties received relevant information from LexisNexis did not establish that LexisNexis itself issued a consumer report.

Cupp’s CCRAA claims failed for the same reasons because he conceded that a CCRAA claim survives only to the extent an FCRA claim survives. Cupp also conceded that his intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was preempted by the FCRA and waived any defense of that claim.

Disposition

Judge James Donato dismissed the complaint as to LexisNexis with leave to amend. Cupp may file an amended complaint consistent with the order by March 21, 2025. The court prohibited adding new parties or claims without prior consent. The order states that failing to meet the deadline or comply with the order will result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).