Massey v. MBNA America Bank, N.A.,
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 3099011, W.D.Ky., Nov 17, 2005
This matter is before the Court on Motions to Dismiss and/or Summary Judgment by Defendant, MBNA America Bank, N.A. ("MBNA"). Having been fully briefed by both parties, the matters are ripe for decision. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff's spouse, Tamara Massey, applied for and received a credit card from MBNA in 1997. The card remained current and in good standing until sometime in 2003. Plaintiff, James Harrison Massey ("Massey"), and Defendant disagree on whether Plaintiff was an "authorized user" on the MBNA credit card account. Both parties agree, however, that the Plaintiff assumed no liability on the MBNA credit card account. In 2003, MBNA initiated efforts to collect a delinquency owed by Tamara Massey. Persons identified to be MBNA employees called the Massey residence up to 19 times per day. During these conversations, the MBNA representatives indicated Plaintiff was personally liable on his wife's debt and that if Plaintiff did not pay, MBNA would "see to it that derogatory credit information" would be given to the credit reporting agencies.
Plaintiff attempted to acquire financing to start a business in April 2004. It was then that Plaintiff discovered MBNA had furnished allegedly incorrect credit information to credit reporting agencies which generated a disparaging credit score and report. Plaintiff was denied the credit necessary to commence his business due in part to the credit information supplied by MBNA. Plaintiff notified MBNA of the incorrect information in his credit report, but the report was not corrected.
On April 15, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging various claims arising as a result of MBNA's furnishing of credit information and its allegedly harassing debt collection practices. MBNA seeks dismissal of what it calls Plaintiff's "credit claims" for failure to state a claim. It also seeks summary judgment on what it calls Plaintiff's "harassment claims."
II. Legal Standards
A. Standard for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) Dismissal
Upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, accept all the factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiffs undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of their claim that would entitle them to relief. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1251, 117 S.Ct. 2409, 138 L.Ed.2d 175 (1997). In reviewing complaint on motion to dismiss for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted, a court is not bound to accept alleged legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Claybrook v. Birchwell, 199 F.3d 350 (6th Cir.2000). A court may consider pleadings and exhibits thereto in deciding a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion. Weiner, D.P.M. v. Klais & Co., Inc., 108 F.3d 86, 89 (6th Cir.1997). A Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim for which the law provides relief. Gazette v. City of Pontiac, 41 F.3d 1061, 1064 (6th Cir.1994).
B. Summary Judgment Standard
The summary judgment standard requires that the Court find that the pleadings, together with the depositions, interrogatories and affidavits, establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The moving party bears the initial burden of specifying the basis for its motion and of identifying that portion of the record which demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party thereafter must produce specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges in paragraph six that MBNA intentionally furnished inaccurate credit information to credit reporting agencies which damaged his credit rating. In paragraph seven, Plaintiff alleges that MBNA threatened, intimidated and harassed him in an attempt to collect a credit card debt for which he had no legal responsibility. In paragraph eight, Plaintiff claims that he suffered various types of damage as a result of MBNA's wrongful conduct.
MBNA maintains that all of the Plaintiff's state law "credit claims" which are related to its furnishing of credit information are preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Additionally, MBNA asserts that the Plaintiff cannot state a claim under FCRA. The Court will first analyze whether the Plaintiff's state law "credit claims" are preempted and then turn to an analysis of the appropriate provisions of FCRA. The Court will lastly analyze the Plaintiff's "harassment" claims.
C. The Harassment Claims
MBNA seeks summary judgment on what it terms the Plaintiff's "harassment claims." The Defendant divides the Harassment claim into individual claims of defamation, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with business opportunity and loss of consortium. The Plaintiff, in his response, states that he did not plead a defamation claim, but that his complaint states the following claims: 1) harassment, 2) negligence, 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, 4) loss of economic and business opportunities, and 5)interference with marital relationship. The Court will address each claim Plaintiff maintains he has alleged and one that he has not.
Although a claim under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") was not specifically plead, MBNA asks for summary judgment on any such claim under the FDCPA citing that, as a bank, it is not a "debt collector" as required by the act. The Court agrees. Case law on the FDCPA is well settled on the point that "a creditor is not a debt collector for the purposes of the FDCPA and creditors are not subject to the FDCPA when collecting their accounts." Id. at 794 (citing Zsamba v. Community Bank, 63 F.Supp.2d 1294, 1299-1300 (D.Kan.1999); Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 76 F.3d 103, 107 (6th Cir.1996); Meads v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., 686 F.Supp. 330 (S.D.Ga.1988)). Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment on any potential claim by Plaintiff that MBNA did not follow the requirements of the FDCPA when attempting to collect the debt.
From the Plaintiff's response it appears his negligence claim is based on an alleged failure on the part of MBNA to exercise reasonable care in the hiring and training of employees engaged in collection activities and that such failure resulted in the harassment and intimidation from which he suffered. It is difficult to separate this claim of negligence from the claim of harassment. Nevertheless, the complaint itself does not state a negligence claim and MBNA's motion to dismiss it is granted. Paragraphs six and seven of the complaint allege only intentional and deliberate conduct. Negligence is referred to only once in paragraph eight with respect to "tortious and/or negligent" interference with the marital relationship, which is addressed below.
The Plaintiff's intentional interference with a marital relationship claim is not recognized by Kentucky courts. Intentional interference with a marital relationship was abolished by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Hoye v. Hoye, Ky., 824 S.W.2d 422 (1992). The Court questions whether there is a claim of "negligent" interference with a marital relationship but surmises if it does exist it would resemble what Kentucky recognizes as a loss of consortium claim. This is evident from the Plaintiff's response. However, like the Plaintiff's purported negligence claim, the facts supporting such an allegation are not pled in the complaint. The so-called interference with marital relationship claim is only mentioned in paragraph eight as one type of damage the Plaintiff suffered from the claimed wrongdoing which is set out in paragraphs six and seven. Thus, the Court concludes that a loss of consortium claim is not stated in the Plaintiff's complaint.
The loss of economic and business opportunities claim is preempted as set out above. It relates directly to MBNA's reporting of credit information.
Remaining are Plaintiff's "harassment" claim and his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. It is not clear to the Court if the Plaintiff's "harassment" claim is an independent cause of action recognized under Kentucky law. The Plaintiff obviously believes it is but the Defendant did not analyze it as such. The Court is cognizant of KRS 446.070, which allows a private cause of action for damages to any person injured by the violation of any statute. KRS 525.070 and 525.080 prohibit harassment and harassing communications. The court in Stafford allowed a similar harassment claim to survive summary judgment, thus, the court will considered it as a viable claim.
If the "harassment" claim is a viable claim, then Plaintiff's tort of outrage/IIED claim should be dismissed since such a claim serves only as a gap filler under Kentucky common law. See Taylor v. University Medical Center, Inc.2005 WL 1026190, at *3 (W.D.Ky.2005) (citing Banks v. Fritsch, 39 S.W.3d 474,481 (Ky.App.2001)).
The Court is reluctant to dismiss these claims at this stage. The Defendant raises a statute of limitations defense which may prove valid once discovery reveals the time period during which the alleged harassment took place. However, the record at this time does not show that the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court will allow the harassment claim and the IIED claim to proceed. After discovery, which perhaps should be limited at first to the statute of limitations issue, other dispositive motions may be filed.
Lastly, Plaintiff's motion to strike the affidavit supplied by MBNA to establish the mechanism for supplying credit information to the credit reporting agencies is moot, as the Court decided this matter on statutory interpretation of FCRA.
For the reasons set forth above, the motion by Defendant to dismiss all "credit" claims is granted. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining issues is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's motion to strike is moot.
Massey v. MBNA America Bank, N.A.
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 3099011 (W.D.Ky.)
Postby David A. Szwak » Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:40 pm
- General Discussions, Forum Registration, and ID Theft and Credit-Related News Stories
- General Discussion
- News Stories on Identity Theft, Personal Data Thefts and Credit Reporting Abuses
- Current Cases
- Lawyer Jokes
- FCRA Statute and Defined Terms Under the FCRA
- FCRA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Reporting Agency?
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Report?
- Resellers: Who are They? What Do They Do? Are They Liable Under the FCRA?
- Investigative Consumer [Credit] Reports
- Who is a Furnisher?
- How to Get Your Credit Reports and How and Who to Write Your Dispute Letters to
- How To Get Your Credit Reports
- Dispute Letters
- Do You Have To Pay For Your Credit Report?
- FCRA Private Rights of Action and Duties Imposed by the FCRA
- Impermissible Access: 15 U.S.C. 1681b[f] and 1681q
- Front End Duties of the Credit Reporting Agencies: 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b)
- Back End Duties of the CRAs: 1681i[a]:
- Credit Bureau's Duty to Provide Consumer Documentation to Furnisher: 1681i[a][B]
- Duty to Add a Consumer's Dispute Statement in Association with a Specific Account and In Connection with the Credit File/Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681i[c]
- Furnisher FCRA Liability: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2
- Failing to Mark Contested Accounts As Disputed: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2[a]
- Obsolescence: When Must the Credit Reportings Come Off of the Credit Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681c
- Duty to Notate Disputed Accounts As Such: 15 U.S.C. 1681c[f]
- Adverse Action Notice Rules: 15 U.S.C. 1681m and ECOA
- Credit Solicitations Are Required to be Clear and Conspicuous: 1681m[d]
- Potential Exposure For Sanctions Due to Filing Bad Faith FCRA Cases: 15 U.S.C. 1681n[c], 28 U.S.C. 1927, and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11
- Credit Repair Organizations Act [CROA]
- 1681g: Credit Bureaus' Duties to Provide Reports/Disclosures and to Add 100 Word Statements of the Consumer
- Affiliate Sharing Problems and Violations, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3
- Common Credit Report Errors and Agency Misconduct
- Credit Errors
- Theft of Identity
- Mixed File Cases
- Re-Aging: Debt Collector's Efforts to Revive Obsolete Reportings
- Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Data: How and When Can It Happen?
- VIP Databases and Offline Status
- Deceased Reporting Cases
- Causation: The Crucial Link Between Breach of a Duty and Damages
- Causation to Damage [Proving Your Damages Are Related to and Caused by the Defendants
- Types of Damages, Remedies, and Awards Under the FCRA and Related State Law Claims
- Damages Under FCRA
- Punitive Damages: 15 U.S.C. 1681n
- Injunctive Relief: FCRA and State Law
- Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs:
- Declaratory Relief Under the FCRA
- What is Your Potential Case Worth? Other Case Verdicts, etc.
- FCRA Jury and Bench Trial Verdicts
- Other Federal Laws Related to Credit Reporting, Data Privacy, Billing Errors and ID Theft
- FDCPA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1692, et. seq.
- Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666, et. seq.
- Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. §1028
- Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (“HAFA”)
- State Law Claims Related to Credit Reporting, Billing Errors, Privacy Breaches and ID Theft
- Invasion of Privacy: State Law
- Defamation: State Law
- Interference With Prospective Credit: State Law
- Interference With Marital/Family Relations: State Law
- Infliction of Emotional Distress/Mental Anguish: State Law
- Data Breach Claims and Issues
- Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Claims: State Law
- Jurisdiction, Venue, Removal to Federal Court, Remand to State Court, and Other Pre-Trial Jurisdicti
- Removal of FCRA Cases From State Court To Federal Court
- Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in Credit Reporting Cases
- FCRA Litigation Strategies and Procedural Issues and Law
- Settlements, Releases, Prevailing Party Status, and Other Things You Need to Know If You Resolve Your Case Before Judgment
- Offers of Judgment In FCRA Litigation
- Secret Documents, Product Information and Testimony
- Choicepoint Secret Documents:
- Equifax/CSC and Affiliates Secret Documents:
- Experian Secret Documents
- Innovis Secret Documents:
- Trans Union Secret Documents
- Furnisher and Public Records Suppliers Secret Documents
- Respondeat Superior, Vicarious Liability, and Whether Others Are Liable
- Liability For Employee's FCRA Violations? Liability For FCRA Violations by Third Parties?
- FCRA Preemption, Immunity, and Qualified Immunity
- FCRA Preemption: 15 U.S.C. 1681t[b][F] and Related Discussions
- FCRA Qualified Immunity: 15 U.S.C. 1681h[e] and Related Discussions
- States/Govermental Immunity From FCRA Claims?
- Jury Voir Dire, Instructions, Verdict Forms, etc.
- Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms
- Jury Questionnaires, Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Jury Bias
- Credit Card Issues
- Credit Card Liabilities
- Do You Have a Right to Bring Claims and How Long Do You Have?
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- Standing to Sue
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, and Other Report Codes
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, Risk Factors, Denial Codes and Other Scores and Codes Supplied by the Credit Reporting Agencies
- The Mechanics of Credit Reporting
- Public Records Reportings [Non-Bankruptcy]
- Bankruptcy Reporting
- Student Loan Credit Reporting
- Metro Tape [I and II]: Standardized Credit Reporting Formats Used by the Credit Industry
- Defenses Asserted by Credit Reporting Defendants
- What Law Applies? Problems Barring Use of the Court and Law
- Arbitration, Forum Selection, Choice of Law, Choice of Venue and Other Adhesionary Clauses
- Conflicts of Laws Issues in FCRA and Related State Law Issues
- Standing and Statutes of Limitations
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- FCRA Legal Forms [Suits, Discovery, etc.]
- Discovery: Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, Requests to Inspect, Requests For Admissions, Deposition Notices, Subpoenas, Deposit
- FCRA Sample Pleadings: Complaints, Motions, Oppositions and Other Standard Lawsuit Filings
- Defenses Frequently Asserted by Defendants to Consumer's Actions
- FCRA Class Actions and Class Issues
- FCRA Class Actions
- Special Evidentiary Issues: What is Evidence?
- Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases
- Expert Witnesses, Special Issues and Daubert and Related Challenges
- Appellate Issues, Rules, Law, Etc.
- Defenses Asserted by Industry and Abuse Stories
- Defense Counsel Abuses and War Stories
- Law Outlines: Various Topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests