Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ronald G. Pyle Ii v. Leave To Amend First National Collection Bureau

April 20, 2012

RONALD G. PYLE II,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
LEAVE TO AMEND FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 30 DAYS (Docket No. 1)

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff Ronald G. Pyle II ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendant First National Collection Bureau ("Defendant"). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this complaint pursuant to Title 15 Section 1681 for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that in July 2011, he received his credit report from TransUnion, a major credit-reporting agency, and "discovered an entry by an entity that was unknown within the credit report." (Doc. 1, ¶ 12.) Upon examination, Plaintiff determined that Defendant "had obtained Plaintiff's private consumer credit report" in November 2009 "without [Plaintiff's] expressed consent or permissible purpose." (Doc. 1, ¶ 13 (emphasis omitted).)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was "in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b[,] by obtaining Plaintiff's credit report without a permissible purpose from TransUnion, because at or about the time that Defendant obtained Plaintiff's credit report, none of the specific and strictly limited circumstances granting permissible purpose under section 1681b applied to Defendant." (Doc. 1, ¶ 15 (emphasis omitted).) Plaintiff alleges one count for violation of the FCRA through "willful non-compliance" by Defendant, and seeks statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 and costs. (Doc.1, p. 4, ¶¶ 17-24.)

III. DISCUSSION

A. Screening Requirement

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

B. Legal Standard for Screening

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability . . . 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true. Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

C. Plaintiff Fails to Plead a Valid Claim for Violation of the FCRA

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully violated the FCRA by accessing his credit report without his express consent or a permissible purpose. (Doc. 1, ΒΆΒΆ 13, 15, 17-24.) As such, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.