Lewis v. Old Navy

Background

Regina Lewis sued Synchrony Bank and Old Navy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). She alleged that after she made two payments totaling $259 on an Old Navy credit-card account ending in 7902, Synchrony reported an incorrect balance. She said the reporting affected other accounts, reduced her credit score, and negatively affected her remaining accounts. She sought $75,000 in damages.

Lewis alleged that she disputed the reporting directly with Synchrony and later complained to Experian. The opinion states that the amended complaint did not identify what information was inaccurate, to whom it was reported, or what happened during Lewis’s later communications with Synchrony and Experian. In her opposition to the motion, Lewis also referred to a lowered credit score, loss of credit, inability to open new credit, and a charge-off.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). The court explained that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff does not have standing. Standing requires a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between that injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision can remedy the injury.

The court also explained that a bare procedural violation of the FCRA, without concrete harm, does not satisfy the Constitution’s injury requirement. A lower credit score alone generally is not enough unless the plaintiff alleges that the risk materialized, such as through dissemination of inaccurate information to a potential creditor or another specific credit-related consequence.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Lewis had not alleged a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing. Although she stated that her credit score and other accounts were negatively affected, she did not allege that she was actually denied credit or suffered another concrete consequence. She also did not identify a third party that received a credit report containing the allegedly inaccurate information, or allege that she applied for credit in circumstances supporting an inference that the defendants sent her report to a potential creditor.

Because Lewis did not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her FCRA claims. The court did not decide whether the defendants actually violated the FCRA.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that the dismissal was without prejudice because a dismissal for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, including lack of standing, cannot be with prejudice. Lewis was granted until February 8, 2024, to file a second amended complaint reasserting claims dismissed without prejudice and alleging a sufficiently concrete injury. The court stated that failure to comply on time may result in the remaining claims being dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail the opinion and order to Lewis, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.