TAURO v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE
2:12-cv-00418
| W.D. Pa. | Jun 20, 2012Background
- Tauro, pro se plaintiff, sues Asset Acceptance, Northland Group, Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, and Asset Management Pro in the Western District of Pennsylvania for FDCPA, FCRA, and FCEUA violations.
- Plaintiff alleges 2010–2011 credit pulls without permissible purpose and collection of a non-existent debt.
- Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); the court evaluates indigence and screening standards.
- Court applies two-step IFP analysis per Roman v. JejJes, and assesses frivolity and failure to state a claim.
- Court finds complaint fails to plead plausible claims under FDCPA, FCRA, and FCEUA and grants leave to amend within 30 days.
- IFP motion granted; case dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend to cure deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA viability under §1692g(a) | Tauro asserts debt collection without proper validation. | Defendants dispute lack of pleaded initial communication/validation facts. | FDCPA claim dismissed without prejudice. |
| FDCPA viability under §1692g(b) | Tauro contends debt verification was not provided after dispute. | No factual dispute communications alleged. | FDCPA claim under §1692g(b) dismissed without prejudice. |
| FCEUA viability | Tauro alleges unfair/deceptive acts under FCEUA from credit pulls and collection. | Plaintiff fails to identify communications or prohibited acts with factual support. | FCEUA claim dismissed without prejudice. |
| FCRA viability | Tauro alleges willful credit report pulls without permissible purpose. | Plaintiff provides no specific facts showing lack of permissible purpose. | FCRA claim dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman v. JeJJes, 904 F.2d 192 (3d Cir. 1990) (two-step IFP analysis and frivolousness review)
- Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (IFP application applies to all complaints, not just prisoners)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (indigent status and screening standards)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (recipe: plausibility standard, no blanket conclusions)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (requirement of plausible facts supporting claims)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (notice pleading standard; plausibility requirement)