Pugh v. Corelogic Credco, LLC
8:13-cv-01602
D. MarylandOct 16, 2013Background
- Pro se plaintiff David R. Pugh sued CoreLogic Credco, LLC after a purported "hard pull" of his Experian credit report on Aug. 23, 2012, alleging credit-score harm, denials of credit, and emotional distress.
- Plaintiff alleges CoreLogic obtained his report under a false or unregistered alias ("CREDCO/ONETECHNOLOGIES") and lacked a permissible purpose, asserting violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, MCDCA, and MCPA.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court, answered, and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) (treated like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion). Plaintiff did not oppose the motion despite receiving a Roseboro notice.
- The complaint mostly recites statutory elements (e.g., willful obtainment under false pretenses, use of an alias, attempts to collect a debt) but supplies few concrete facts about the alleged conduct, causation, or damages.
- The court evaluated whether the pleadings met the Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard and whether any claims also implicated Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud-like allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCRA: improper obtainment/use of consumer report | CoreLogic pulled Pugh's consumer report under false pretenses and without permissible purpose, causing harm | Complaint lacks factual detail showing an unauthorized use, permissible-purpose absence, or willfulness | Dismissed for failure to plead plausible FCRA claim (conclusory allegations insufficient) |
| FDCPA: unlawful debt-collection practices and use of alias | CoreLogic used an alias to obtain report and attempted collection in violation of 1692e(10) and 1692e(14) | Plaintiff fails to plead CoreLogic is a "debt collector" or that an alias was used to collect a debt (not merely to obtain a report) | Dismissed for failure to plead requisite facts connecting alias/use to debt-collection misconduct |
| MCDCA: attempting to collect nonexistent debt with knowledge | CoreLogic attempted to collect a debt it knew it lacked the right to collect | Plaintiff offers only statutory recitation without factual allegations of defendant's knowledge that debt was invalid | Dismissed for failure to plead that defendant knew the debt was invalid |
| MCPA: unfair or deceptive trade practices causing actual loss/reliance | CoreLogic engaged in deceptive practices (fake/unregistered alias) causing credit and emotional harm | Plaintiff fails to allege reliance, causal connection, or concrete loss required for private MCPA claim; MCPA claim sounding in fraud also subject to Rule 9(b) | Dismissed for failure to plead factual basis for deception, causation, and damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim, not mere labels)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions insufficient; plausible factual allegations required)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (FCRA purpose: fair/accurate reporting and consumer privacy)
- Ausherman v. Bank of Am. Corp., 352 F.3d 896 (4th Cir. 2003) (FCRA civil liability for willful/negligent noncompliance)
- Burbach Broad. Co. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2002) (12(c) standard parallels 12(b)(6))
- Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 714 F.3d 769 (4th Cir. 2013) (MCPA claims that sound in fraud are subject to Rule 9(b) heightened pleading)