Okamura v. Rental Research Services, Inc.

Background

Kiana Okamura sued Rental Research Services, Inc., alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). The law requires a consumer-reporting agency to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information in a consumer report.

Around February 2022, Okamura and her fiancé applied to live at Summerset Apartments in Fargo, North Dakota. Goldmark Property Management owned the apartment and had contracted with Rental Research to provide tenant-screening reports. Rental Research sold Goldmark a report about Okamura that purported to provide her credit, criminal, and civil-record history. The report included an eviction and judgment record belonging to Kiarah Okamura, Okamura’s sister.

Goldmark told Okamura that her housing application was denied because of that record. Okamura informed Goldmark of the mistake, but Goldmark still refused to rent to her. Okamura, her fiancé, and their children eventually moved into the apartment, but Okamura was not permitted to be named on the lease. She did not dispute the report with Rental Research.

Motion and legal standard

Rental Research moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). On such a motion, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. The complaint must allege enough facts to make liability plausible rather than merely possible.

Court’s analysis

Rental Research argued that the report was “technically accurate” because it identified the record as based solely on name similarities and warned Goldmark that the record might not belong to the subject of the report. Okamura argued that, even if technically accurate, the report was materially misleading and therefore inaccurate under the FCRA.

The court distinguished cases that involved summary judgment or judgment based on trial evidence because this case concerned only whether Okamura’s pleadings plausibly stated a claim. The court explained that, under current Eighth Circuit law, information that is technically correct may still be inaccurate if it is materially misleading. Whether the report and its warnings were materially misleading was a factual question for a jury.

Ruling

The court concluded that Okamura sufficiently alleged that the report was inaccurate and misleading. It held that a jury must decide whether the report, considered together with its warnings, was materially misleading under the FCRA.

The court therefore denied Defendant Rental Research Services, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order did not decide whether Rental Research ultimately violated the FCRA; it allowed Okamura’s claim to proceed. The opinion was signed by United States District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.