Muhammad v. Transunion Consumer Solutions ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Eric Muhammad, No. CV-22-02024-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Transunion Consumer Solutions, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff filed an Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) If 16 a Plaintiff is proceeding in Forma Pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint (Doc. 1) 17 to determine whether the action is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on 18 which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 19 immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Furthermore, under Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8, a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether 21 an original claim, counter-claim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain: (1) a short 22 and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the 23 court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support 24 it; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; 25 and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or 26 of several different types may be demanded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). 27 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than 28 an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 1 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported 2 by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint “must contain sufficient 3 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. 4 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible 5 “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 6 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 7 U.S. at 556). A complaint that provides “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation 8 of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor will a 9 complaint suffice if it presents nothing more than “naked assertions” without “further 10 factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. 11 Here, the Court finds that the Complaint satisfies the procedural and statutory 12 requirements. Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction under the Fair Credit Reporting 13 Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., naming Defendants Experian, Equifax 14 Information Services, LLC, and Transunion Consumer Solutions. Plaintiff further alleges 15 the following: (1) Transunion, Equifax, and Experian (“Defendants”) failed to verify the 16 transactions Plaintiff disputes in police reports regarding his identity theft claim; (2) 17 Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with requested information regarding his credit 18 report; (3) Defendants failed to remove information from Plaintiff’s credit report following 19 his identify theft claims and supplied police report; and (4) Defendants caused Plaintiff and 20 his business financial harm since May 2020. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 21 Plaintiff next alleges that he has “been unable to advance my quality of life, the 22 quality of life of my family and my business because of my credit worthiness, which was 23 caused by the gross negligence and mismanagement by Transunion, Equifax, and 24 Experian.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in damages under the FCRA. (Id.) Plaintiff also 25 seeks $150,000 in punitive damages, asserting that “[e]ven after submitting the required 26 documentation Experian has acted recklessly, irresponsibly, and with total disrespect for 27 the federal laws mandating proper & just conduct as it pertains to management of my credit 28 line.” (Id.) For these reasons, the Court finds Rule 8 satisfied. 1 Likewise, when analyzing the requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the 2|| Court again finds Plaintiffs allegations are pled with sufficient specificity. The Complaint || is therefore not frivolous or malicious. Lastly, Plaintiff states a claim upon which relief can be granted and names defendants subject to suit. See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan || Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing the FCRA provides || consumers a private right of action against furnishers of credit reporting information). 7\|| Plaintiff has therefore satisfied all statutory requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED allowing Plaintiff to proceed and serve the Complaint. Plaintiff 10 || is reminded to review the Courts order at docket number 7 for the requirements of service. 11 Dated this 5th day of December, 2022. 12 13 “SS ee > SO fonorable Susan M. Brnovich = 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-