Shaunfield v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3119
N.D. Tex.2014Background
- Plaintiff Shaunfield, proceeding pro se, filed a state-court defamation and FCRA suit, later removed to federal court.
- Second amended complaint adds multiple defendants and alleges Experian maintained two inaccurate credit files and disseminated false reports.
- Radiology, AHFC, CSI, and Experian moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings; motions ripe for decision.
- District court adopted findings recommending dismissal of Radiology/AHFC/CSI claims and partial denial/denial of Experian claims.
- Plaintiff seeks damages, costs, and attorney’s fees; Experian seeks dismissal of certain claims and denial of fees due to pro se status.
- Court analyzes Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) standards to determine plausibility and preemption issues under the FCRA and Texas law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1681i(a) claim against Experian survives pleading standards | Plaintiff asserts Experian failed a reasonable reinvestigation. | Experian argues lack of factual support for a viable reinvestigation claim. | Denied; 1681i(a) claim survives plausibly. |
| Whether 1681e(b) claim against Experian survives pleading standards | Plaintiff alleges Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy. | Experian contends the claim is conclusory and unsupported. | Denied; 1681e(b) claim survives. |
| Whether defamation claim against Experian is preempted by the FCRA | Plaintiff asserts defamation based on false reports disseminated by Experian. | Defendant argues §1681h(e) preempts state defamation claims unless malice shown. | Not preempted; Plaintiff adequately pleads malice/willful conduct for defamation. |
| Whether Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 20.06 claims against Experian are preempted | Plaintiff claims violations of Texas 20.06 for reinvestigation and reporting. | Defendant argues preemption by §1681t(b)(1)(F). | Not preempted; 20.06 claims survive against Experian. |
| Whether Radiology, AHFC, and CSI have viable 1681s-2(b) claims | These furnishers allegedly failed to investigate disputed items. | Plaintiff fails to identify specific disputed items and content; claims are conclusory. | Dismissed with prejudice; claims against Radiology, AHFC, and CSI barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; mere conclusory statements insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility requires enough facts to state a claim plausibly)
- Morris v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 457 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2006) (FCRA malice/pretreatment distinctions; private rights of action under 1681s-2(b))
- Young v. Equifax Credit Information Services, 294 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2002) (malice/willful intent required to preempt common-law claims under FCRA)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (reckless disregard standard for actual malice)