McBride v. Missouri Higher Education

Background

Plaintiff Luwana McBride filed suit on May 4, 2026 against defendants United States Department of Education, Missouri Higher Education (MOHELA), Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Services LLC, and Transunion Information Services LLC. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706.

McBride alleges that she took out student loans in connection with enrollment at ITT Technical Institute based on ITT's alleged misrepresentations that Pell Grants would offset her loan obligations and that attendance would lead to employment opportunities. ITT subsequently ceased operations and entered Chapter 7 bankruptcy following federal investigations. McBride claims she has repeatedly disputed the loans with the credit reporting agencies (CRAs) between 2019 and 2025 and has filed borrower defense applications with the Department of Education.

Her complaint asserts four causes of action: (1) failure to follow reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), against all defendants; (2) failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, against all defendants; (3) furnisher liability, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), against MOHELA; and (4) violation of the APA against the Department of Education.

The court denied McBride's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 6, 2026. Equifax filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2026, which Experian joined by notice on June 12, 2026. The court granted McBride leave to file a late opposition. Equifax and Experian filed a reply on July 17, 2026.

Jurisdiction

The court exercised federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Legal Standard

The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The court cited Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The court noted that it may not look beyond the complaint to a plaintiff's moving papers when assessing the pleadings.

Analysis

FCRA Claims Against Equifax and Experian

The motion addressed only the claims against Equifax and Experian — the CRA defendants — not the claims against MOHELA, the Department of Education, or TransUnion.

Section 1681e(b) — Accuracy Procedures

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports. The court cited binding Ninth Circuit authority establishing that to sustain either a § 1681e(b) or § 1681i claim, a plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of actual inaccuracy in what the CRA reported. Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010).

The court found that McBride never alleged that the specific information Equifax or Experian reported about her loans was factually incorrect. While she alleged that ITT fraudulently induced her to take out the loans, that the loans were in dispute, and that she filed borrower defense applications, none of these allegations establish that what the CRAs actually reported was false or misleading. The court noted that under Ninth Circuit law, credit reports are considered accurate where the CRAs correctly report information furnished by the creditor, even when there is a pending legal dispute between the plaintiff and the creditor about the validity of the underlying debt. Stone v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00195-GMN-EJY, 2024 WL 4279384, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2024).

The court also rejected McBride's argument that the CRAs' failure to reflect the disputed status of the debt was itself an FCRA violation, citing Carvalho for the proposition that a CRA is not required to provide a legal opinion on the merits or report disputed-status information simply because a consumer asserts a legal defense.

Section 1681i — Reasonable Reinvestigation

Section 1681i requires a CRA, upon receiving notice of a consumer dispute, to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation within 30 days. However, the court held that if there is no underlying inaccuracy, the reasonableness of any reinvestigation is not at issue. Gross v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 33 F.4th 1246, 1251 (9th Cir. 2022). Because McBride failed to adequately allege an actual inaccuracy, her reinvestigation claim also failed.

Documents Not Before the Court

McBride referenced an extensive documentary chronology, exhibits, and a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaint in her opposition brief, arguing they supported her claims. The court found that none of these materials were actually attached to the complaint, submitted with the opposition, or otherwise provided to the court. Because the court is limited to the allegations of the complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, these materials could not be considered.

Disposition

The court granted Equifax and Experian's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. McBride has 28 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint limited to curing the deficiencies identified — i.e., adequately pleading actual inaccuracy in the CRAs' reporting. The court warned that failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of these defendants with prejudice.

The court also continued the case management conference from September 8, 2026 to November 24, 2026, with updated case management statements due November 17, 2026. Claims against MOHELA, the Department of Education, and TransUnion were not addressed in this order and remain pending.