PIETA v. USAA GROUP, 3:13-cv-00322

Defendants USAA Group and USAA Insurance Agency, Inc. of Texas remove a state court action to federal court for dismissal.
Plaintiff alleges inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus by USAA entities, harming his credit scores and finances, seeking $5,000 under FCRA and correction of data.
Defendants move to dismiss for misnaming entities and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(4)/(5) and 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff argues he named the correct entities based on Florida records and addresses, and that he sought correction of data from the furnisher.
The court analyzes whether §1681s-2(a) private right of action applies to furnishers and whether §1681s-2(b) provides a private remedy only upon notice from a consumer reporting agency.
The magistrate judge recommends granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a plausible claim and dismissing the case under Rule 12(b)(6).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether USAA Group and USAA Insurance Agency of Texas were properly named/served.	Pietra named the entities based on active Florida records and address usage.	USAA Group and USAA Insurance Agency are the correct entities; the named ones are misnamed for service purposes.	Dismissal warranted for improper party naming and service.
Whether the complaint states a claim under the FCRA that the furnishers violated §1681s-2(a) or otherwise.	Defendants provided inaccurate information to credit bureaus affecting him.	Private actions under §1681s-2(a) are not available; only agencies can enforce; section barred for furnishers.	Plaintiff cannot state a §1681s-2(a) claim; dismissal sustained.
Whether §1681s-2(b) private action exists given lack of notice from a credit reporting agency.	Directly notified defendants to correct data; dispute alleged without agency notice.	Private right applies only when furnisher receives dispute notice from a credit bureau.	No §1681s-2(b) private action; dismissal appropriate.
Whether the complaint plausibly states a claim under the relevant FCRA provisions.	Claims wrongdoing by furnishers and seeks relief under FCRA.	No §1681s-2(b) or (a) claim stated; allegations insufficient to show duty, breach, and causation.	Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Iqbal v. United States, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claims; conclusory statements insufficient)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely possible)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (standard for dismissing frivolous, malicious, or precluded claims)
Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003) (precedent on Rule 12(b)(6) standard familiarity)
Carruthers v. American Honda Fin. Corp., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (N.D. Fla. 2010) (1681s-2(b) requires notice from a credit bureau to furnishers)
Sanders v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2012) (private right of action under §1681s-2(a) limited; agency-based enforcement)