19 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 252,377 times 279 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 266,313 times 365 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
578 U.S. 330 (2016) Cited 7,390 times 437 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statutory violation, without more, did not give rise to Article III standing
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,807 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.
528 U.S. 167 (2000) Cited 7,141 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing
Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (1975) Cited 11,856 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
493 U.S. 215 (1990) Cited 2,368 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))
Boggio v. USAA Federal Savings Bank
696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012) Cited 181 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "consumers may step in to enforce their rights only after a furnisher has received proper notice of a dispute from a [credit reporting agency]"
Stafford v. Cross Country Bank
262 F. Supp. 2d 776 (W.D. Ky. 2003) Cited 190 times
Holding that even if willfulness was sufficiently pled so as to survive § 1681h(e) preemption, Plaintiff's claims may, nevertheless be preempted under § 1681t(b)(F) if they "involve a subject matter regulated under § 1681s-2, which § 1681t(b)(F) preempts"
Smith v. Ohio State Univ.
191 F. Supp. 3d 750 (S.D. Ohio 2016) Cited 33 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs suffered no concrete harm when, in the process of submitting to a background check for defendant, they were provided with "disclosure and authorization [forms] which improperly included extraneous information such as a liability release, in violation of the FCRA"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,529 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1681s-2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 Cited 2,868 times 42 Legal Analyses
Granting enforcement power to state and federal regulators
Section 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance
15 U.S.C. § 1681n Cited 2,307 times 42 Legal Analyses
In §§1681n and 1681o, the Act authorizes consumer suits for money damages against "[a]ny person" who willfully or negligently fails to comply with this directive.
Section 1681p - Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions
15 U.S.C. § 1681p Cited 665 times 9 Legal Analyses
Granting to district courts original jurisdiction over claims brought under the FCRA

Jackel et al v. Equifax Information Services, Llc et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that a statutory violation, without more, did not give rise to Article III standing

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

Holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))

Holding that "consumers may step in to enforce their rights only after a furnisher has received proper notice of a dispute from a [credit reporting agency]"

Holding that even if willfulness was sufficiently pled so as to survive § 1681h(e) preemption, Plaintiff's claims may, nevertheless be preempted under § 1681t(b)(F) if they "involve a subject matter regulated under § 1681s-2, which § 1681t(b)(F) preempts"

Holding that the plaintiffs suffered no concrete harm when, in the process of submitting to a background check for defendant, they were provided with "disclosure and authorization [forms] which improperly included extraneous information such as a liability release, in violation of the FCRA"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Granting enforcement power to state and federal regulators

In §§1681n and 1681o, the Act authorizes consumer suits for money damages against "[a]ny person" who willfully or negligently fails to comply with this directive.

Granting to district courts original jurisdiction over claims brought under the FCRA