Moore v. Capital One

Background

Erisa Moore, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint against Capital One Bank and its executives Richard Fairbank and Andrew Young. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and common-law defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a defendant to challenge a complaint before the case proceeds further.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Moore’s debt-collection claims were insufficient because she did not plausibly allege that any defendant was a “debt collector” covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The court said Moore’s credit-reporting claim appeared to concern inaccurate reporting under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). It held that this provision does not create a private cause of action, meaning an individual cannot sue directly for an alleged violation of that subsection.

The court also held that Moore’s defamation claim was preempted, or displaced, by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Separately, the court said the claim would fail because Moore did not identify the allegedly defamatory statements, explain why they were defamatory, or allege that the statements were false.

The court additionally stated that there was no evidence Moore had served Fairbank and Young with the summons and amended complaint. In a footnote, the court addressed Moore’s apparent references in her opposition brief to invasion of privacy and Fourth Amendment claims. It said those claims could not be added through an opposition brief, would also be preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private actors such as the defendants.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Moore’s claims in their entirety. It declined to grant Moore permission to amend again, explaining that the problems were substantive, that a prior amendment opportunity had already been provided, and that Moore had not requested another amendment or identified facts that would cure the problems.

Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, enter judgment for the defendants, mail the opinion and order to Moore, and close the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Moore the status allowing her to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.