Ngambo v. Chase

Background

Jules Ngambo, appearing without a lawyer, sued Chase under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He alleged that Chase reported credit information to TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax even though he said the information was inaccurate. Ngambo alleged that he notified Chase and the three credit-reporting agencies of the dispute, that Chase confirmed the information was accurate, and that Chase continued updating his credit report. He asserted that Chase inaccurately reported information, failed to show that the information was disputed, and failed to conduct a proper investigation. He sought at least $1,350,000 in damages.

The court had previously allowed Ngambo to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because he was proceeding without prepayment, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Inaccurate-reporting claim

Ngambo alleged that Chase violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) by reporting inaccurate information after he sent Chase a certified letter. The court explained that this provision imposes duties on entities that provide information to credit-reporting agencies, but that the provision is enforced exclusively by federal and state officials. It therefore does not give individuals a private right to sue.

The court dismissed Ngambo’s claim that Chase inaccurately reported information to credit-reporting agencies after receiving his letter.

Investigation claim

Ngambo also relied on 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), which requires an information provider to investigate disputed information after receiving notice of the dispute from a credit-reporting agency. The court explained that this provision does allow a private lawsuit. To state such a claim, a consumer must allege that the information provider received notice from a credit-reporting agency and then negligently or willfully failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.

The court found Ngambo’s allegations insufficient. It noted that his complaint largely used general statements and contained an apparent contradiction: he denied having any credit agreement with Chase, while his application to proceed without prepayment stated that he owed Chase approximately $11,712 in credit-card debt. The court also noted that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not automatically require an information provider to delete a disputed account; it requires an investigation and reporting of the investigation’s results. Because Ngambo did not describe what information was inaccurate or explain why Chase’s investigation was unreasonable, the court found that he had not adequately pleaded a violation of § 1681s-2(b).

Leave to amend and ruling

The court granted Ngambo leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to include the facts and claims he wished to pursue because it would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court directed him to identify relevant persons, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain his injuries, and state the relief requested. For a claim under § 1681s-2(b), the court specifically required facts describing the allegedly erroneous information and how Chase’s investigation was deficient.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Ngambo and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if Ngambo failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.