Johnson v. Keybank
2014 Ohio 120
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Stephen Johnson notified KeyBank that he was being reported to ChexSystems for an alleged debt; KeyBank investigated and removed the report and any debt notations.
- Johnson sent letters seeking monetary compensation; KeyBank refused.
- Johnson sued in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas pro se alleging unauthorized inquiry, illegal reporting, negligence, identity theft, libel, and conspiracy to defraud, claiming damages including humiliation and mental distress.
- KeyBank removed the case to federal court, which remanded for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction; KeyBank then moved for judgment on the pleadings in state court under Civ.R. 12(C).
- The trial court granted KeyBank’s Civ.R. 12(C) motion and dismissed the complaint; Johnson appealed the dismissal.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal, holding Johnson’s federal and state claims either lacked a private cause of action or were preempted by the FCRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KeyBank’s reporting violated the FCRA and gives rise to a private claim | Johnson contends KeyBank illegally reported him to ChexSystems and is liable under the FCRA | KeyBank argues the FCRA’s duties in §1681s-2(a) do not create a private right of action; enforcement lies with agencies | Court: No private cause of action for alleged §1681s-2(a) violations; Count 1 fails as matter of law |
| Whether state-law claims (identity fraud, libel, conspiracy) survive despite FCRA | Johnson says these state claims arise from the reporting and seek relief for harm caused | KeyBank contends these claims are preempted to the extent they relate to furnishers’ duties under the FCRA | Court: State claims premised on furnishers’ reporting duties are preempted by 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(1)(F) and therefore barred |
| Whether dismissal on Civ.R. 12(C) was appropriate | Johnson argues trial court failed to consider all damages and facts | KeyBank argues pleadings show no viable legal theory and dismissal is proper under Civ.R. 12(C) | Court: Construing pleadings in plaintiff’s favor, no set of facts would entitle Johnson to relief; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether any other alleged misconduct by KeyBank supports non-preempted claims | Johnson alleged humiliation, attorney fees, mental distress but tied to reporting error | KeyBank notes complaint contains no other factual wrongdoing beyond reporting to ChexSystems | Court: Complaint’s only factual basis is erroneous reporting; no other conduct alleged, so preemption applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 (Ohio 1973) (limits Civ.R. 12(C) review to pleadings and attached writings)
- Burnside v. Leimbach, 71 Ohio App.3d 399 (10th Dist. 1991) (judgment on the pleadings requires no material factual issues and entitlement as a matter of law)
- Walters v. First Natl. Bank of Newark, 69 Ohio St.2d 677 (Ohio 1982) (plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, establish liability to survive motion to dismiss)
- Jones v. Federated Fin. Res. Corp., 144 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 1998) (purpose of FCRA: protect consumers from inaccurate consumer reports)
- Stafford v. Cross Country Bank, 262 F.Supp.2d 776 (W.D. Ky. 2003) (distinguishes duties imposed by FCRA on consumer reporting agencies, users, and furnishers)
- Ruggiero v. Kavlich, 411 F.Supp.2d 734 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (no private cause of action for violations of furnishers’ duties under §1681s-2(a))