Joseph Wheeler v. Microbilt Corp.
700 F. App'x 725
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Wheeler applied to rent an apartment; the landlord obtained a consumer report from MicroBilt alleging a civil judgment for eviction against Wheeler that actually related to another person.
- The landlord initially denied Wheeler’s rental application based on the report; Wheeler later cleared his name and ultimately rented the property.
- Wheeler sued MicroBilt under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) for inaccurate reporting.
- The district court dismissed Wheeler’s complaint with prejudice, finding his allegations of actual damages (economic and emotional) conclusory and insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal.
- Wheeler appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and evaluated both actual-damages and willfulness-based statutory/punitive damages claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheeler sufficiently pleaded actual damages from the erroneous report | Wheeler alleged economic harm (lost work time, denied rental opportunity) and reputational/embarrassment harm | MicroBilt argued allegations were conclusory and Wheeler ultimately obtained the apartment, so no plausible actual damages pleaded | Affirmed dismissal of actual-damages claims for failure to plead plausible facts under Twombly/Iqbal |
| Whether emotional-distress allegations suffice without detailed facts or objective proof | Wheeler contended embarrassment and humiliation from being falsely reported evicted | MicroBilt argued these are conclusory and unsupported | Affirmed that mere conclusory assertions of emotional distress are insufficient |
| Whether plaintiff may seek statutory and punitive damages for willful FCRA/CCRAA violations despite lack of actual damages | Wheeler sought statutory and punitive damages alleging willful violation by MicroBilt | MicroBilt had challenged the sufficiency of pleaded willfulness (district court did not reach these claims) | Reversed and remanded to allow amendment to plead statutory and punitive damages for willful violations with specificity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (heightened plausibility pleading standard)
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (pleading notice standard discussed historically)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (factual allegations must plausibly suggest entitlement to relief)
- Johnson v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 793 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for dismissal)
- Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017) (statutory damages available for willful FCRA violations)
- Grigoryan v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (emotional distress need not have objective proof in some contexts)