Andresakis v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2011)
Facts: Pro se Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. (“Capital One”) alleging that Capital One supplied false information to a CRA resulting in Plaintiff’s inability to obtain a mortgage. Plaintiff’s claims were based on the FCRA. Capital One moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims as barred by the FCRA’s statute of limitations, which was granted by the court.
Statute of Limitations. The FCRA requires that any “action to enforce any liability created under this subchapter…be brought…not later than the earlier of … 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for such liability; or…5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. Plaintiff argued that his FCRA claims is not time barred because he discovered the facts that supported his claim in 2009 or, in the alternative, the Statute of Limitations should have been tolled. The Court held that there was no basis for Plaintiff to argue that he discovered the FCRA violation within the two year statute of limitations. The latest that Plaintiff could allege a violation is when he was allegedly denied a mortgage in November 2006. Plaintiff did not file suit until 2009, more the two years later. Since Plaintiff failed to allege a possible FCRA violation within the statute of limitations, his FCRA claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
Statute of Limitations. In the alternative Plaintiff sought to toll the running of the statute on the grounds of his age, disability or infirmity. The Court rejected this argument holding that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to toll his claims under New York CPLR § 208, which provides for tolling on the grounds of a “disability because of infancy or insanity.”