Curtis v. Citibank, South Dakota, N.A., 261 P.3d 1059

Curtis alleged July 2008 unauthorized charges incurred by a house guest; Citibank instructed Curtis to file police report and provide affidavit, then admitted no personal liability but referred the account to PRS.
Curtis sued Citibank and PRS for libel, credit libel, FDCPA, and MCPA; PRS settled and dismissed.
Citibank moved for judgment on the pleadings under M.R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing state-law claims were preempted by FCRA and that FDCPA claim did not apply to PRS.
District Court granted judgment on the pleadings for Citibank on the state-law claims, finding preemption by FCRA; Curtis appealed.
The issue on appeal is whether Curtis’ state-law claims were preempted by the FCRA; the court ultimately remands for further proceedings on the state-law claims.
The court reverses and remands, holding that PRS’s status as a consumer reporting agency is not established and that FDCPA governs PRS, thus preemption does not apply to the state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in preemption of Curtis’ state-law claims by FCRA?	Curtis argues PRS is not a consumer reporting agency; state-law claims not preempted.	Citibank argues PRS is a consumer reporting agency or furnisher of information, triggering FCRA preemption.	Preemption does not apply; remand for state-law claims.

Ritter v. Bill Barrett Corp., 351 Mont. 278 (2009 MT) (judgment on pleadings standard; correctness reviewed on appeal)
Firelight Meadows, LLC v. 3 Rivers Telephone Coop., Inc., 344 Mont. 117 (2008 MT) (standard for Rule 12(c) motions; factual disputes ignored)