2014 WL 7192812
E.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Nguyen (pro se) sued Ridgewood Savings Bank and its CEO Peter Boger under the FCRA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inaccurate credit reporting of ~22 delinquencies and related harms.
- Nguyen contacted the FDIC Consumer Response Center in 2013; the FDIC relayed inquiries to Ridgewood.
- Ridgewood initially defended its reporting (Nov. 19, 2013) but on Dec. 9, 2013 told the FDIC it would expunge the delinquency history and update credit-reporting agencies; the FDIC notified Nguyen (Dec. 16, 2013).
- Nguyen sent Boger a Dec. 29, 2013 letter alleging willful FCRA violations and personal harms.
- Ridgewood moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court dismissed Nguyen’s FCRA claims without prejudice (leave to amend) and dismissed the § 1983 claim with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1681s‑2(a) creates a private cause of action | Nguyen alleges Ridgewood willfully reported inaccurate information and failed to correct it | Ridgewood: subsection (a) is enforceable only by government officials | Court: No private right under § 1681s‑2(a); claim dismissed |
| Whether § 1681s‑2(b) was violated (notice trigger) | Nguyen contends Ridgewood failed to properly investigate despite FDIC interaction and letters | Ridgewood: duty under § 1681s‑2(b) is triggered only by notice from a consumer reporting agency, not the FDIC | Court: Plaintiff did not plausibly allege notice from a consumer reporting agency or deficient investigation; FCRA claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Liability of individual CEO (Boger) under FCRA | Nguyen sent Boger a letter asserting the violation; seeks relief against Boger individually | Boger: no allegation he furnished information or received notice from a CRA | Court: No plausible factual allegations tying Boger to FCRA duties; claim dismissed without prejudice |
| § 1983 claim (state action) | Nguyen alleges deprivation of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and other federal rights | Defendants: private actors; no state action alleged | Court: § 1983 requires state action; Nguyen alleged none—claim dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Longman v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 702 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2012) (no private cause of action to enforce § 1681s‑2(a))
- Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (recognizing private right of action under § 1681s‑2(b))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not presumed true at pleading stage)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2011) (pleading standards and dismissal principles)
- Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of a § 1983 claim)
- American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)