Mosley v. Bank of America, N.A.
Civil Action No. 2020-3065
| D.D.C. | Sep 17, 2021Background
- Mosley discovered in Feb 2019 a credit card account in his name he says he did not open; he reported identity theft to the FTC, D.C. police, and disputed the account with major credit reporting agencies (CRAs).
- Bank of America allegedly investigated, concluded Mosley was responsible, but refused to provide detailed findings; CRAs reported the furnisher provided no detailed proof of its determination.
- Mosley alleges Bank of America failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and to maintain adequate records, causing inaccurate reporting (currently listed as a “Paid charge-off account” with $0 balance) that harmed his employment and licensing prospects; he seeks deletion/notification to CRAs and does not seek monetary damages.
- Mosley sued in D.C. Superior Court; Bank of America removed to federal court and moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The court construed Mosley’s pro se filings liberally, treated his claims as arising under the FCRA, dismissed any claim under §1681s-2(a) with prejudice, declined to dismiss his §1681s-2(b) claim at the pleading stage, and ruled equitable relief under the FCRA is not available to private litigants (ordering Mosley to amend the remedy sought by Oct. 22, 2021).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mosley stated a private claim under §1681s-2(a) | Mosley alleges Bank of America furnished inaccurate information and failed to update/correct it. | Bank of America argues any claim under §1681s-2(a) is not privately enforceable. | Court: §1681s-2(a) has no private right of action — dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether Mosley pleaded a §1681s-2(b) claim (furnisher duties after CRA notice) | Mosley says he disputed the account with CRAs, CRAs notified Bank of America, and Bank of America failed to conduct a reasonable investigation or provide proof. | Bank of America contends its reporting was accurate, so investigation was reasonable as a matter of law. | Court: Allegations are sufficient at pleadings stage to state a plausible §1681s-2(b) claim; claim survives dismissal. |
| Whether the Court may resolve accuracy of reporting on a 12(b)(6) motion | Mosley argues inaccuracy exists because he did not open the account and was denied proof of investigation. | Bank of America asks dismissal because records allegedly show accurate reporting. | Court: Accuracy is a factual issue not resolvable on the pleadings; cannot grant dismissal on that basis now. |
| Availability of equitable relief under the FCRA | Mosley seeks deletion/notification relief (equitable remedy) rather than money damages. | Bank of America argues private litigants may not obtain injunctive/equitable relief under the FCRA. | Court: Private suits under the FCRA generally cannot obtain equitable relief; dismissed as to equitable relief and permitted Mosley to amend complaint on remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (FCRA’s purpose and interpretive guidance)
- Simms-Parris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2011) (private enforcement available under §1681s-2(b) only)
- Crabill v. Trans Union LLC, 259 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2001) (reasonableness of furnisher investigation is generally a fact question)
- Himmelstein v. Comcast of the Dist., LLC, 931 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2013) (describes furnisher obligations under §1681s-2)
- Betz v. Jefferson Cap. Sys., LLC, 68 F. Supp. 3d 130 (D.D.C. 2014) (no private cause of action under §1681s-2(a); pro se filings construed liberally)
- Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (court need not accept legal conclusions as true)