FENTY-DEY EL v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES
2:17-cv-03544
D.N.J.May 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Crystal A. Fenty-Deyel filed four nearly identical pro se complaints under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), each naming a different debt-collection entity as defendant (FIA CSNA; Cavalry Portfolio Services; BCA Financial Services; Enhanced Recovery).
- Plaintiff alleges each defendant accessed her consumer credit report without a permissible purpose, discovered by reviewing her TransUnion/Experian reports.
- Each complaint alleges willful and negligent violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f)/§ 1681n but contains no factual allegations about the defendants’ state of mind or circumstances justifying an inference of impermissible purpose.
- Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the Court granted IFP status based on inability to pay but was required to screen the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The Court applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard (liberally construing pro se pleadings but not crediting bare conclusions) and concluded the complaints failed to plead facts showing willfulness or lack of permissible purpose.
- Complaints dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim; plaintiff was given 30 days to amend, with dismissals converting to with-prejudice if no timely cure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff plausibly pleaded an FCRA claim for obtaining a consumer report without permissible purpose and willfully/negligently violating § 1681b | Fenty-Deyel alleges each defendant accessed her credit report without permissible purpose and acted willfully and negligently | Defendants implicitly argue (via lack of factual response) that the complaint contains no facts showing they knew or should have known there was no permissible purpose | Court held allegations are conclusory; plaintiff failed to plead facts about defendants’ mental state or circumstances to show impermissible purpose or willfulness; dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim; leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes the plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (extends Twombly; courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1989) (standards for proceeding in forma pauperis)
- Braun v. United Recovery Sys., LP, 14 F. Supp. 3d 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (FCRA claims require facts showing impermissible purpose and willfulness/negligence)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard on dismissal with/without prejudice for pro se plaintiffs)
- Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 F.2d 858 (3d Cir. 1984) (standards for denying leave to amend)