Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Lockett v. Check Free
November 18, 2011
Name of Assigned Judge D. Leinenweber Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Harry than Assigned Judge
Defendant Check Free's Motion to Dismiss  is granted. To the extent Plaintiff's response  is construed as a motion to amend his Complaint, that motion is denied.
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Before the Court is Defendant Check Free's Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff Charles Lockett's claim against it for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 ("FRCA"). For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted.
In November 2010, Lockett brought this suit alleging that Check Free violated the FCRA when it placed its name on his TransUnion credit report, making it appear as though the owed the company money. Lockett alleges this caused him to be denied credit and employment. Check Free argues that dismissal is warranted because Lockett has failed to adequately allege a claim against it as a "furnisher" of information to consumer reporting agencies. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint in which he alleged that, as of March 22, 2011, Check Free continued to report inaccurate information to Trans Union. Check Free moves to dismiss his complaint on the ground that although its name appears on Lockett's credit report, it appears in a section titled "Account Review Inquiries," which states as follows:
The companies listed below obtained information from your consumer report for the purpose of an account review or other business transaction. These inquires are not displayed to anyone but you and will not affect any creditor's decision or any score (except insurance companies may have access to other insurance company inquiries, where permitted by law)
Due to this language, Check Free argues that Lockett's factual allegations are demonstrably meritless. As such, Check Free moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or for a more definite statement Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v. E.J. Brach Corp., 176 F.3d 971, 978 (7th Cir. 1999). A complaint must describe the claim with sufficient detail as to give the defendants fair notice of the claim, and to "plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising the possibility above a speculative ...
Buy This Entire Record For