Douek v. Citibank, N.A.

Background

David Douek, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Citibank, N.A., TD Bank, N.A., Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and various individuals. His complaint appeared to focus on an allegation that Citibank obtained his credit report without permission to update his profile and extend a line of credit. Douek alleged that this harmed his creditworthiness, caused a $100.01 check to be returned for insufficient funds by his yacht club, and led to repeated calls from collection agencies. He also referred to the CARES Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, price gouging, price fixing, harassment, defamation, and a hostile work environment, but did not explain the basis of those claims or identify which defendant was responsible for them.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint failed Rule 8, which requires a short, plain, clear, and direct statement explaining the claim and why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court said that the defendants and the court were left to guess what Douek’s claims were and which facts supported them.

The court considered whether the complaint could be read to assert claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. It concluded that any Fair Credit Reporting Act claim failed because the statute permits a credit report to be obtained for a credit transaction involving the consumer, including extending credit or reviewing an account. Douek’s own allegation stated that Citibank obtained his report to update his profile and extend a line of credit. The court therefore found that the alleged purpose was permitted by the statute.

The court also concluded that any Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim failed. Such a claim required allegations that a defendant called Douek’s cellular phone using an automatic dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without his prior consent. Douek alleged only that collection agencies called him five or more times per day and did not allege those required details.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Douek’s complaint in its entirety. It declined to grant him permission to amend his federal claims because he had already been given an opportunity to amend, had been warned that he would not receive another opportunity, and had not shown that amendment would cure the problems. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the power to hear related state-law claims—so any possible state-law claims were not decided. The court entered judgment for the defendants, denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, and directed the clerk to terminate the listed motions and mail Douek a copy of the order.