Alert

District Court Dismisses FDCPA and FCRA Action Against Community College

January 2, 2025

On December 11, 2024, the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a pro se litigant’s claims against Montgomery Community College (the College) for, inter alia, alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, and the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. The court ruled that the pro se plaintiff had failed to state plausible claims for relief under both the FCRA and FDCPA and dismissed the FDCPA claim with prejudice and the FCRA claim without prejudice.

Factual Background

Plaintiff’s complaint provided scant details about his relationship with the College, apart from claiming that the College “inaccurately reported” a debit on his credit report despite Plaintiff’s alleged attempts to “dispute the validity of [the] debt.” Plaintiff attached to his complaint communications that he allegedly sent to the College, to which he claims he never received a “satisfactory response[s].” He alleges over $1 million in damages due to the College’s alleged violations of the FDCPA and the FCRA.

The College moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Analysis

The court reasoned that Plaintiff’s FCRA claim failed because the complaint failed to set forth sufficient allegations that the College was a “furnisher” of Plaintiff’s credit information under FCRA. Because Plaintiff’s claims were limited to his “dispute” of alleged incorrect information from the College, the court found that this was not sufficient to establish a plausible violation of FCRA. However, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s FCRA claim without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to amend the claim if he could allege specific facts to cure the defect.

As for Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, the court found that his claim could not be plausible under any factual circumstances because the College was not a “debt collector’ under the FDCPA as the College’s “principal purpose” was not the “collection of any debts.” Because of this, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim with prejudice.

The Takeaway

This case should remind non-financial institutions, such as the College, that if they report credit information about employees or students, they could be privy to suits under the FDCPA and/or the FCRA. However, these institutions should be mindful that a possible early resolution route could be a motion to dismiss if the institution does not meet the strict statutory definitions of the FDCPA and FCRA.