Harrison v. Kaner

Background

Guinette Harrison proceeded without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. She invoked the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Harrison alleged that she became lost while traveling to Dr. Douglas Kaner’s office, called the office in distress to apparently cancel an appointment after a sibling’s death, and later incurred a medical debt. She also alleged repeated calls to her cell phone, compromised information, denial of a personal loan because of unlawful tactics and fraud, and negative credit-report information. An attachment indicated that the debt was approximately $23,000.

The complaint named Dr. Kaner, Dr. John Doe, D & R Physicians, and Denefits, LLC. The opinion states that Harrison alleged she resided in New York, Denefits resided in California, and the medical defendants resided in New Jersey.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The court held that Harrison had not alleged enough facts to state a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She did not identify which defendant engaged in the alleged harassment or other conduct. The court explained that the statute applies to qualifying “debt collectors,” and that Dr. Kaner, Dr. Doe, and D & R Physicians might not qualify if they attempted to collect a debt owed to them under their own names. The court granted Harrison leave to provide facts about Denefits’s conduct and how that conduct violated the statute.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

The court explained that an individual may sue a furnisher of credit information under the provision requiring an investigation after the furnisher receives notice from a consumer reporting agency that the consumer disputes the information. Harrison did not allege that any defendant provided inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency, that she reported an inaccuracy, or that a defendant failed to investigate after receiving notice from a consumer reporting agency. The court therefore found that she failed to state a claim under the provision that provides a private right of action, while granting leave to add supporting facts.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

The court stated that Harrison’s allegations could potentially support state-law claims, but it was uncertain whether the court could hear them if the federal claims were dismissed. Diversity jurisdiction requires opposing state citizenship and a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 is at stake. The attachment indicated that the amount in controversy was less than $75,000. The court also found that Harrison had not adequately pleaded Denefits’s citizenship because a limited liability company’s citizenship depends on the citizenship of each member, not merely the location of an address. The court granted leave to provide facts showing that diversity jurisdiction exists.

The court reserved the question whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims in a later amended complaint if the federal claims no longer remained.

Disposition

The court granted Harrison 60 days to file an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint, so Harrison must repeat any facts or claims she wants the court to consider. The court instructed her to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe her injuries, and state the relief sought.

No summons issued at that time. The court stated that if Harrison failed to amend within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not resolve the ultimate merits of Harrison’s federal or state-law claims.