CHARLES v. IC SYSTEM
1:17-cv-02332
S.D. Ind.Jan 16, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Charles sued I.C. System in Indiana state court alleging false credit reporting and continuous harassment over a bill not owed; defendant removed to federal court.
- Complaint is pro se and contains only brief, conclusory allegations: false claim on credit report and harassment/intimidation.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not oppose.
- Court evaluated whether the allegations could state claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), state law, or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- Court concluded FCRA claim based on furnishing false information (15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)) is not privately actionable and related state-law claims are preempted by 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F).
- Court found plaintiff’s bare allegation of harassment could support an FDCPA theory but the complaint lacked factual detail; court dismissed but granted leave to amend within 28 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegation that I.C. System made a false report to a credit agency states an FCRA claim | Charles alleges I.C. System made a false claim on his credit report | I.C. System argues § 1681s-2(a) claims have no private right of action | Dismissed: no private right under § 1681s-2(a); claim fails |
| Whether state-law claims based on furnishing false credit info survive | Charles alleges harassment/false reporting | I.C. System argues such claims are preempted by 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) | Dismissed: preempted to the extent they relate to § 1681s-2 matters |
| Whether plaintiff stated an FDCPA claim for harassment | Charles alleges continuous harassment over a bill not owed | I.C. System did not address FDCPA in its motion | Not dismissed on the pleadings: court found potential FDCPA theory but complaint lacks facts and needs amendment |
| Whether pro se plaintiff should get leave to amend | Charles proceeded pro se and plead minimally | I.C. System sought dismissal; did not oppose amendment relief | Court granted leave to amend once within 28 days, encouraging factual detail and counsel assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Bank of America, 659 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.) (no private right for claims under § 1681s-2(a))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions insufficient; plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir.) (accept well-pleaded facts and draw inferences for plaintiff)
- Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169 (7th Cir.) (identify well-pleaded facts and discard conclusions)
- Rabe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 636 F.3d 866 (7th Cir.) (pleading need not identify legal theories)
- Barry Aviation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Mun. Airport Comm'n, 377 F.3d 682 (7th Cir.) (leave to amend is generally appropriate once)