FENTY-DEY EL v. BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES
2:17-cv-03545
D.N.J.May 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Crystal A. Fenty-Deyel filed four virtually identical pro se complaints against four different debt-collection/credit entities alleging they accessed her consumer credit report without a permissible purpose in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
- Each complaint alleges the defendants accessed her TransUnion/Experian report and asserts willful and negligent violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f)/§ 1681n.
- Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the court found she established inability to pay and granted IFP status.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court screened the IFP complaints for failure to state a claim using the Rule 12(b)(6) standard (Twombly/Iqbal).
- The court held the complaints lack factual allegations about defendants’ mental state or knowledge sufficient to plausibly plead willfulness or that the requests were for an impermissible purpose, so the FCRA claims fail.
- The dismissals are without prejudice; plaintiff was given 30 days to file amended complaints curing the deficiencies, with failure to do so resulting in dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP should be granted | Fenty-Deyel cannot afford filing fees | Not directly disputed | IFP granted (plaintiff established inability to pay) |
| Whether complaints state an FCRA claim for impermissible access | Defendants accessed credit reports without permissible purpose; violations were willful/negligent | Implicit defense that mere access alone without more fact pleading is insufficient | Complaints fail to plausibly plead an impermissible purpose or willfulness; claim dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Sufficiency of pleading mental state (willfulness/negligence) under FCRA | Allegation that defendants acted “willfully” and “negligently” is sufficient | Mere labels/conclusions are insufficient without supporting facts | Court requires specific factual allegations as to defendants’ state of mind; labels insufficient |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice; leave to amend | Plaintiff should be allowed to cure defects | Defendants would likely oppose if futile or prejudicial | Dismissal without prejudice; 30 days granted to amend; failure to cure leads to dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes the plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requires factual allegations to show plausibly that defendant is liable)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed)
- Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598 (3d Cir.) (standard for IFP financial showing)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir.) (standards for granting leave to amend pro se complaints)
- Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 F.2d 858 (3d Cir.) (circumstances to deny leave to amend)
- Braun v. United Recovery Sys., LP, 14 F. Supp. 3d 159 (S.D.N.Y.) (FCRA claims based on §1681b require factual allegations about willfulness and impermissible purpose)