Perez v. Experian

Background

Pro se plaintiff Eric Andrew Perez sued Experian Information Solutions, Equifax Information Services LLC, Trans Union, LLC, New York SMSA Limited Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless, Sequium Asset Solutions, the Federal Trade Commission, and Citibank, N.A. He alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The court had already dismissed the claims against the Federal Trade Commission and all claims brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Perez alleged that Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union reported inaccurate account balances, educational-loan information, inquiries, and employment history. He also alleged that Verizon, Citibank, and Sequium continued furnishing inaccurate debt information after he disputed it. He claimed that the inaccurate reports caused lost credit and employment opportunities and other harm.

Sequium moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Equifax moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, while Experian, Trans Union, and Verizon moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court applied the same basic pleading standard to both types of motions and considered Perez’s allegations liberally because he was representing himself.

Fair Credit Reporting Act claims

The court recommended dismissing Perez’s claims under FCRA § 1681s-2(a) with prejudice. That provision requires information furnishers to report accurate information and correct inaccuracies, but the court held that it provides no private right of action; enforcement is limited to federal and state authorities.

The court also recommended dismissing with prejudice Perez’s § 1681s-2(b) claims against Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union. That provision applies to furnishers of information, while Perez alleged that these defendants were consumer reporting agencies and conceded that they were not furnishers. The court recommended dismissing without prejudice the § 1681s-2(b) claims against Verizon and Sequium. Perez alleged that those entities could be furnishers, but he did not allege that a consumer reporting agency notified them of his disputes, which is required to trigger their investigation duties under that provision.

The court treated Perez’s allegations about the credit reporting agencies as possible claims under FCRA §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i. Section 1681e(b) concerns reasonable procedures for accurate reporting, and § 1681i concerns reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information. The court concluded that Perez did not adequately allege that the agencies used deficient procedures, acted willfully or negligently, or otherwise violated § 1681e(b) or § 1681i. It recommended dismissing the § 1681i claims without prejudice, allowing amendment if Perez could provide the required facts. It also recommended dismissing without prejudice the claims concerning allegedly incomplete employment history, but only if Perez could explain how that information affected his creditworthiness or another factor covered by the FCRA.

The court held that the allegations about missing gender information, address changes, and Experian’s sex-offender notifications did not state an actionable FCRA claim because those matters did not constitute information bearing on eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or the other purposes covered by the statute.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims

The court recommended dismissing the FDCPA claims with prejudice. Perez did not adequately allege that Experian, Equifax, or Trans Union were debt collectors. The court also concluded that his pleadings showed Verizon acted as a creditor rather than a debt collector and did not allege facts bringing Verizon within the FDCPA’s limited treatment of certain creditors as debt collectors.

Sequium conceded that it was a debt collector, but the court still recommended dismissal of the FDCPA claim against it. Perez alleged only that Sequium failed to send a debt-settlement letter. The FDCPA requires certain collection notices, but the court held that it does not require a debt collector to offer a settlement.

Recommended disposition and next steps

The report recommended granting the motions and dismissing with prejudice: Perez’s claims under FCRA § 1681s-2(a), his § 1681s-2(b) claims against Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union, and his FDCPA claims. It recommended dismissing without prejudice: his § 1681s-2(b) claims against Verizon and Sequium, his FCRA employment-history claims against Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union, and his FCRA § 1681i claims against those agencies. The report recommended giving Perez 30 days after the district court’s decision to file an amended complaint.

Judge James L. Cott issued the report and recommendation to United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. The parties were given 14 days after service to file written objections; the report stated that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review.