United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Virginia M. Hernandez Covington, Judge
matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendant
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
the Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. # 48) and Defendant
Equifax Information Services LLC's Motion to Dismiss the
Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. # 49), both filed on September
5, 2017. Pro se Plaintiff Ali Taj Bey filed a “Motion
to Strike, Dismiss Defendants, Defenses and Counterclaims for
Failure to State a Claim, Demand for Judgment on the
Pleadings” on October 12, 2017, which the Court also
construes as Bey's response in opposition to
Defendants' Motions. (Doc. # 62). Equifax, Experian, and
Defendant Trans Union, LLC responded to Bey's Motion.
(Doc. # 63). For the reasons that follow, Defendants'
Motions are granted and Bey's Motion is denied.
initiated this action on March 30, 2017, by filing his
Complaint against Defendant American Honda Financial Services
Corporation. (Doc. # 1). Bey then filed an Amended Complaint
on April 25, 2017, which the Court dismissed on April 27,
2017. (Doc. ## 5, 8). Bey then filed a Second Amended
Complaint, asserting various claims including violation of
the National Bank Act and breach of contract against American
Honda, based on American Honda's failure to acknowledge
that Bey paid off his debt. (Doc. # 18). The Court dismissed
the Second Amended Complaint on May 25, 2017, noting that the
National Bank Act did not create a private cause of action
and directing Bey to clarify the citizenships of the parties
involved. (Doc. # 25).
on July 3, 2017, Bey filed his Third Amended Complaint
asserting Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681 et seq., claims against American Honda
Finance Corp. and three other Defendants, Equifax, Trans
Union, and Experian. (Doc. # 28). After Equifax filed a
motion to dismiss, Bey filed his Fourth Amended Complaint on
August 18, 2017, again alleging FCRA claims against American
Honda, Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union. (Doc. # 43).
Fourth Amended Complaint, Bey alleges he “made written
requests” to American Honda, his creditor, “to
verify the information they were reporting as correct.”
(Id. at 8). But American Honda “failed to
respond to [his] FCRA dispute” and failed “to
promptly delete this information and cease reporting to all
(3) major consumer reporting agencies.” (Id.).
Additionally, he “generally dispute[d] any information
on my report simultaneously with all 3 major credit reporting
agencies, Experian , Equifax , [and Trans Union], to
assure the completeness and accuracy of all reports.”
(Id. at 3). “All allegations made with respect
to defendants range from failure to make required disclosures
with all notices, which should include the summary of
consumer rights, for failure to remove disputed accounts or
provide certifications from furnishers, or delete incomplete,
inaccurate or unverified information within 30 days of the
time of this Order, American Honda Finance Corp. has been
dismissed as a party and Trans Union has filed its Answer.
(Doc. ## 46; 59). Equifax and Experian moved for dismissal of
the Fourth Amended Complaint as to the claims against them on
September 5, 2017. (Doc. ## 48, 49). Bey filed his
“Motion to Strike, Dismiss Defendants, Defenses and
Counterclaims for Failure to State a Claim, Demand for
Judgment on the Pleadings” on October 12, 2017, which
the Court construes as both a motion to strike
Defendants' pleadings and Bey's response to
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. # 62). Experian,
Equifax, and Trans Union responded to Bey's Motion on
October 26, 2017. (Doc. # 63).
motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true all the
allegations in the complaint and construes them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v. Bellsouth
Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004).
Further, this Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable
inferences from the allegations in the complaint.
Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.,
901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th Cir. 1990)(“On a motion to
dismiss, the facts stated in [the] complaint and all
reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as true.”).
But, [w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(internal
citations omitted). Courts are not “bound to accept as
true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286 (1986). Furthermore, “[t]he scope of review must be
limited to the four corners of the complaint.” St.
George v. Pinellas Cty., 285 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.
Court construes pro se pleadings liberally and holds them to
a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir.
2003). But, “a pro se litigant is still required to
conform to procedural rules, and a district judge is not
required to rewrite a deficient pleading.” McFarlin
v. Douglas Cty., 587 F. App'x 593, 595 (11th Cir.
alleges Equifax and Experian each violated two sections of
the FCRA: 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681g and 1681i.
Claims against Equifax
argues the FCRA claims against it should be dismissed because
Bey is attempting to collaterally attack the validity of the
debt he owes American Honda, and, furthermore, Bey has failed
to state claims under the FCRA. (Doc. # 29 at 3). The Court
agrees. The Fourth Amended Complaint's vague allegations
are insufficient to state a claim under the FCRA. The Court
will address each count separately.
Count II, labelled “Plaintiff Alleges Equifax
Information Solutions Failed to Make Required Disclosures and
Enclose Consumers' Summary of Rights, ” Bey appears
to assert claims under both § 1681g and § 1681i.
1681g sets out the procedures that consumer reporting
agencies must follow when they receive a request for
information from a consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)
(“Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request,
. . . clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer: (1)
All information in the consumer's file at the time of the
request . . . (2) The sources of the information . .
.”). Additionally, “[a] consumer reporting agency
shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by
the agency to the consumer under this section - (A) the
summary of rights prepared by the Bureau under paragraph (1)
. . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(c)(2).
to Bey, “[o]n January 24, 2017 & May 16, 2017,
Equifax  failed to make the required disclosures and
enclose consumers' summary of rights.” (Doc. # 43
at 10). Equifax argues this allegation is insufficient to
state a claim under § 1681g(a) because Bey “does
not set forth any details regarding a request for a
disclosure or the sources of information he claims were not
disclosed to him.” (Doc. # 49 at 7). Equifax also
complains that Bey “has not alleged any actual damages
as a result of” the purported § 1681g(a)
violation, which would be required to state a claim for
negligent noncompliance. (Id.); see Taylor v.
Screening Reports, Inc., 294 F.R.D. 680, 686 (N.D.Ga.
2013)(“Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claim
that SRI negligently violated § 1681g. To prove a case
of negligent noncompliance, Plaintiff must produce some
evidence of actual damages caused by the violation.”).
Court agrees. Although Bey provides two dates, he does not
elaborate on the content of his requests for disclosure. Bey
does not elaborate on whether Equifax failed to disclose all
information in his file and all sources of information or
whether it partially disclosed some information and sources.
And Bey does not explain whether no summary of consumer
rights was included, or whether an insufficient summary was
included. If the summary of rights was deficient, Bey does
not explain how. Therefore, Bey has ...