MacPherson v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25576
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Macpherson, pro se, sues Chase in Connecticut state court for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Chase furnishing false information to Equifax.
- Chase removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing FCRA preemption.
- District court granted dismissal, holding Macpherson’s state claims preempted by FCRA §1681t(b)(1)(F).
- On appeal, the issue is whether FCRA preempts state common law tort claims; district court relied on statute’s broad preemption language.
- Court endorses a literal reading: §1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state claims concerning subjects regulated by §1681s-2, including common law torts, and §1681h(e) does not override this broader preemption.
- Conclusion: District court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FCRA §1681t(b)(1)(F) preempt state tort claims? | Macpherson relies on §1681t(b)(1)(F) to preempt state law. | Chase argues §1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state tort claims arising from furnisher conduct. | Yes, preempts state tort claims. |
| Does §1681h(e) save state claims from preemption? | §1681h(e) creates an exception permitting some malice-based state claims. | §1681h(e) does not permit broader state tort claims; it is compatible with preemption. | No, §1681h(e) does not defeat §1681t(b)(1)(F) preemption. |
| Is the preemption interpretation supported by case law? | Argues for a narrower preemption. | Argues for broad preemption under §1681t(b)(1)(F). | Supported by Premium Mortgage and Cipollone framework; preemption is broad. |
Key Cases Cited
- Premium Mortgage Corp. v. Equifax, Inc., 583 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2009) (adopts broad reading of ‘no requirement or prohibition’ to preempt common law as well as statutory law)
- Purcell v. Bank of America, 659 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2011) (confirms 1681h(e) does not block broader 1681t(b)(1)(F) preemption)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (Supreme Court on broad preemption language under ‘no requirement or prohibition’)
- Drake v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 458 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006) (de novo review of district court’s preemption reasoning; supports broad reading)