The claims against TD under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) fail because the Fair Credit Reporting Act provides for administrative enforcement as the exclusive remedy for any such alleged violation. The amended complaint fails to state a claim against TD because it nowhere alleges any fact that can support a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), and “pleads no factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Therefore, TD respectfully asks that this Court dismiss Ms. Osborne’s claim in her amended complaint against TD under the Fair Credit Reporting Act under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

See generally Compl. In particular, Section 1681s-2 of the FCRA, which addresses the responsibilities of furnishers of credit information, prohibits credit furnishers from furnishing “any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate” (see 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A)) and also states that a financial institution that furnishes negative credit information to a consumer reporting agency “shall provide notice of such furnishing of negative information in writing, to the customer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(7)(A)(i); see Prosser v. Navient Solutions, Inc., No. 15–cv–01036–SC, 2015 WL 5168635, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 03, 2015) (“Insofar as the Plaintiff makes claims under 1785.25(b) and (c), SCA ¶ 42, those claims are preempted.”);

The FCRA also exempts frivolous or irrelevant disputes that arise where the consumer does not provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information or the dispute is substantially the same as a previous dispute. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F). PAGE 10 - DEFENDANT DISCOVERY PRODUCTS, INC.'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 118144.0036/5139694.1 LANE POWELL PC 601 SW SECOND A VENUE, SUITE 2100 PORTLAN, OREGON 97204-3158 503778.2100 FAX: 503.778 2200 Case 6:11-cv-03002-HO Document 18 Filed 07/29/11 Page 10 of 13 Page ID#: 73 1997), and Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991).

Ms. Hubbard’s claim against TD is shotgun pleading. The complaint nowhere alleges any fact that can support a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). The complaint “pleads no factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

As discussed above, conduct that falls within the purview of § 1681s–2(a), which shall be enforced exclusively by Federal agencies and officials and State officials, and not by consumers. 15 U.S.C § 1681s-2(c) and (d). Thus, Cross-Complainant’s negligence and defamation claims against Wells Fargo for failing to report accurate information can only be brought by government agencies and officials in accordance with § 1681s–2(a).

See Mullarkey v. Best Buy Corp., 2007 WL 1816474, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2007). Plaintiff makes no such allegations and accordingly fails to state a cause of action. Furthermore, without Plaintiff establishing Chase’s obligation to investigate a dispute under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), Chase cannot negligently or willfully fail to perform such an investigation under sections 1681n–o. Therefore, each of Plaintiff’s remaining FCRA claims must be dismissed as a matter of law.

Works. Case 1:07-cv-00410-MPT Document 21-2 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 15 of 20 under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) (“Section 1681s-2(a)”), a section for which there is no private right of action. *4 Having reviewed the specific arguments presented by Defense counsel in support of dismissal, this magistrate judge finds them less than entirely convincing.

(Am. Compl. ¶¶ Case 2:15-cv-02768-JTF-dkv Document 41-1 Filed 01/26/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID 382 28921256 v1 10 60-61). For that reason, Plaintiff’s FCRA claim against Defendants pursuant to § 1681s-2(b) is insufficient as a matter of law and is due to be dismissed. C. Plaintiff’s FDCPA Claim Fails as a Matter of Law Because He Has Not Established That Defendants are “Debt Collectors” Subject to the Act.

¶ The plain language and purpose of the [FCRA] compel the conclusion that each dispute letter triggers a duty to investigate, regardless of whether the information has been previously disputed. Nothing in the text of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 limits a furnisher’s duty to investigate only to novel disputes. Indeed, the language plainly requires investigation into “a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information.” Id.

affirmative 6 “[T]he FCRA establishes a duty for a consumer reporting agency (like Equifax or CBLC) to give notice of a dispute to a furnisher of information (like Penney) within five business days from the time the consumer notifies the consumer reporting agency of the dispute. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2). Such notice is necessary to trigger the furnisher's duties under Section 1681s-2(b).” Young v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., 294 F.3d 631, 639 (5th Cir. 2002),