Kaestner v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 4:17-cv-02607

Kaestner sued nine defendants (CRAs and furnishers, including Diversified Consultants, Inc. "DCI") under the FDCPA and FCRA, after discovering allegedly inaccurate, negative tradeline information on his credit reports in 2016.
Kaestner sent multiple written disputes to the three credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion); the CRAs responded they verified or updated the disputed accounts and refused deletion.
Kaestner alleges DCI reported a debt he already paid and thus attempted to collect an invalid debt (FDCPA) and failed to conduct a proper investigation or correct information after receiving notice of disputes from the CRAs (FCRA § 1681s-2(b)).
He claims damages including inability to obtain financing, emotional distress, and attorney fees.
DCI moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; because DCI had previously answered, the Court treated the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
The Court granted DCI’s motion, finding Kaestner’s allegations conclusory and lacking the particular factual detail required to plausibly allege violations of the FDCPA or FCRA against DCI.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kaestner pleaded a plausible FDCPA claim against DCI	Kaestner: DCI reported and attempted to collect a debt he already paid and misrepresented the debt’s character/amount	DCI: Complaint fails to identify the specific account, what DCI reported, to which CRA, or how the information was false or deceptive	Court: Dismissed FDCPA claim — allegations are conclusory and lack required factual specificity
Whether Kaestner pleaded a plausible FCRA § 1681s‑2(b) claim against DCI	Kaestner: CRAs notified DCI of disputes but DCI failed to investigate, correct, or report results; continued reporting false information	DCI: Complaint does not identify which accounts, what inaccurate information was provided or when/if DCI was notified or responded	Court: Dismissed FCRA claim — plaintiff failed to plead the necessary facts to show DCI received notice and failed to investigate or correct inaccuracies

NanoMech, Inc. v. Suresh, 777 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2015) (answer precludes motion under Rule 12(b)(6); Rule 12(c) motion is appropriate)
Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA, 623 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(c) reviewed under same standard as Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need not accept legal conclusions; plaintiff must plead plausible claims)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard and requirement of factual enhancement)
Janson v. Katharyn B. Davis, LLC, 806 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 2015) (FDCPA prohibitions and overview)
Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544 (8th Cir. 2008) (Twombly applied to require factual grounds for claims)
Bruce v. First U.S.A. Bank, N.A., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (E.D. Mo. 2000) (FCRA furnisher liability and remedies for negligent noncompliance)
Eckert v. LVNV Funding LLC, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (E.D. Mo. 2009) (dismissing FDCPA claim for lack of factual allegations about communications)
Shaunfield v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (dismissing § 1681s-2(b) claim where plaintiff failed to specify the inaccurate information alleged to have been furnished)