FOX v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC

Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
CLARENCE T. FOX, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
TRANSUNION CONSUMER
SOLUTIONS, LLC,
and EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The pro se Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“complaint”),
ECF No. 7, alleging that the Defendants failed to comply with the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Service was directed of that pleading, 1
ECF No. 9, and Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
1 Plaintiff subsequently submitted a supplemental second amended complaint,
ECF No. 8, but that pleading was rejected as unauthorized. ECF No. 11. Thus,
Defendants’ first motion to dismiss, ECF No. 20, was denied as moot because it
addressed the unauthorized pleading. ECF No. 21. It is also worth noting that Plaintiff
was granted leave to proceed with in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 4.
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 15

Page 2 of 15
12(b)(6), ECF No. 25, arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim
under the FCRA.
Plaintiff was advised of his obligation to respond, ECF No. 26, and he
has filed a brief memorandum in opposition. ECF No. 27. The motion is
ready for a ruling.
Allegations of the Complaint, ECF No. 7
Plaintiff contends Defendants violated the FCRA “by failing to
reasonably investigate or reinvestigate Mr. Fox’s dispute challenging the
accuracy of completeness of the information in his credit report,” including
an alleged failure “to provide adequate or accurate [sic] to Mr. Fox
regarding the outcome of his dispute, failing to utilize reasonable
procedures to ensure the accuracy and completes [sic] of the information in
Mr. Fox’s credit file.” ECF No. 7 at 2. Plaintiff contends he has been
harmed because he “is being viewed by creditors as not being credit
worthy.” 	Id.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleged that on or about December 12,
2024, he “filed a dispute and validation request challenging the accuracy of
all collections and negative items listed on his credit report to” all three
Defendants - Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax. 	Id. at 4. Plaintiff said
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 15

Page 3 of 15
that none of the Defendants responded as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681.
ECF No. 7 at 4. Plaintiff’s second request was filed on March 6, 2025,
which also requested Defendants “provide methods and documentation
used to show accuracy of the collections and native [sic] items listed on his
credit report.” 	Id. 	Defendants advised that the “collections and negative
items listed . . . had been verified and would stay on his credit report.” 	Id.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a third dispute and validation letter. 	Id. at 5.
He asserts that each Defendant “had an obligation to conduct a
‘reasonable reinvestigation’ of the disputed information . . . within a certain
timeline.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff did not allege what happened after filing his third
letter, but he says that he sent a “fourth dispute and validation letter” on or
about April 16, 2025. 	Id. at 5. He contends Defendants “failed to file a
response as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” 	Id. 	Even so,
Plaintiff says that after the fourth letter, “Experian and Equifax had removed
all hard inquiries from Mr. Fox’s credit report” as well as “some collections
and negative items.” 	Id. at 5. However, he contends that the Experian and
Equifax then reasserted the collections and negative items in his credit
report. 	Id. 	Plaintiff argues that those Defendants failed to implement
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15
procedures which would “prevent a new furnisher from reinserting a
previously deleted tradeline.” 	Id. at 6.
Plaintiff claims the Defendants have reported inaccurate and
derogatory information to third parties. 	Id. 	The information includes
“accounts with Credit Collection Service, Jefferson Capital System, Leafy
Financial LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, National Credit Adjust, and Spring
Oaks Capital LLC.” 	Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff says the “inaccurate information
negatively reflects upon” his credit repayment history, his financial
responsibility as a debtor, and his “credit worthiness.” 	Id. at 7. Because of
that information, Plaintiff alleges he has “been denied various loans, and
extensions of consumer credit on many different occasions, and the
inaccurate information that appears on [his] credit report was a substantial
factor for those denials.” 	Id. 	He also claims to have “suffered actual
damages in the form of (a) lost credit opportunities, (b) harm to credit
reputation and credit score, and (c) emotional distress.” 	Id. at 7-8.
Arguments in the Motion to Dismiss
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF
No. 25. Defendants point out that Plaintiff “failed to allege what
information” from Plaintiff’s credit report was inaccurate, has relied on
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15
conclusory assertions of “concrete harm,” and presented only “vague and
conclusory state law claims” which are preempted by the FCRA. ECF No.
25 at 2-3.
Standard of Review
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must determine
whether a complaint alleges “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127
S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but Plaintiff must provide “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65.
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). A plaintiff must
present “‘enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery
will reveal evidence’ of the claim.” Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605
F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127
S.Ct. 1955). If a Plaintiff has “not nudged” his claims “across the line from
conceivable to plausible,” the complaint “must be dismissed.” Am. Dental
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15
Ass’n, 605 F.3d at 1289 (quoting 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). Put
another way, the doors of discovery are not unlocked “for a plaintiff armed
with nothing more than conclusions.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.
Ct. at 1950.
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those
drafted by an attorney. Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir.
1986) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596,
30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972)). Nevertheless, a complaint must provide
sufficient notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests so that a
“largely groundless claim” does not proceed through discovery and “take
up the time of a number of other people . . . .” Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 161 L. Ed. 2d 577 (2005)
(quoted in Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).
Analysis
“Congress enacted FCRA in 1970 to ensure fair and accurate credit
reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer
privacy.” Collins v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 775 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th
Cir.), on reh’g sub nom. Collins v. Equable Ascent Fin., LLC, 781 F.3d
1270 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47,
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6 of 15

Page 7 of 15
52, 127 S. Ct. 2201, 2205, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1045 (2007)). The FCRA protects
“consumers from unfair reporting methods” and simultaneously ensures
that the credit system will “retain the accuracy required by the banking
system to efficiently allocate credit.” Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations
Inc., 98 F.4th 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting Milgram v. Chase Bank
USA, N.A., 72 F.4th 1212, 1217 (11th Cir. 2023)); see 15 U.S.C. § 1681.
“To that end, it imposes various requirements on consumer reporting
agencies.” 2 Erickson v. First Advantage Background Servs. Corp., 981
F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2020). “One of those requirements is that
consumer reporting agencies ‘follow reasonable procedures’ to ensure
‘maximum possible accuracy’ of information in consumer reports.”
Erickson, 981 F.3d at 1251 (citing to 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)). “The FCRA
creates a private right of action 3 against consumer reporting agencies for
the negligent, see 15 U.S.C. § 1681o, or willful, see 15 U.S.C. § 1681n,
2 None of the Defendants have argued that they are not “consumer reporting
agencies.”
3 “Consumers have no private right of action against furnishers for reporting
inaccurate information to [consumer reporting agencies] regarding consumer accounts.”
Holden, 98 F.4th at 1366 (quoting Felts v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 893 F.3d 1305, 1312
(11th Cir. 2018) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c)(1)).
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 7 of 15

Page 8 of 15
violation of any duty imposed under the statute.” Collins, 775 F.3d at 1333
(citing to Safeco, 551 U.S. at 53, 127 S.Ct. at 2206).
“[T]o make out a claim for a violation of § 1681e(b), a plaintiff must
show at least two things: that a consumer report was inaccurate and that
the inaccurate report caused him to suffer damages.” Erickson, 981 F.3d
at 1251 (citation omitted). 4 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s complaint fails
to identify the alleged inaccurate or incorrect information. ECF No. 25 at 6.
In response, Plaintiff argues that he “does not need to allege what
information FCRA defendants have report incorrectly, Plaintiff’s complaint
only needs to show that the Defendants violated the FCRA.” ECF No. 27
at 2. That argument is rejected.
Courts within the Eleventh Circuit have agreed that “conclusory
allegations” in a pro se litigant’s FCRA complaint “about unspecified
‘inaccurate information’ in [a] consumer credit report is insufficient to state
4 A year later, the Eleventh Circuit said that to state a claim under § 1681e, the
plaintiff must show three things - “that the agency's report contained factually inaccurate
information, that the procedures it took in preparing and distributing the report weren't
“reasonable,” and that damages followed as a result.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC,
995 F.3d 937, 944 (11th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Whether two elements or three
elements are required is immaterial for this recommendation.
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15
a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).” 5 Rucker v. Experian, No.
2:24-CV-00222-RWS-JCF, 2024 WL 5397163, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2,
2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-222-RWS-JCF,
2025 WL 945597 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2025) (finding plaintiff “failed to allege
facts that plausibly show that each Defendant's consumer report contained
factually inaccurate or incomplete information, including the specific
information that was allegedly inaccurate or incomplete and the facts that
support Plaintiff's belief that the information was inaccurate or incomplete”).
A complaint fails to state a claim under § 1681e(b) when it “does not
identify which items on [a] credit report were inaccurate, describe how they
were inaccurate, or even identify how many items on [the] credit report
were inaccurate.” Matthews v. Experian Credit Bureau, No.
8:23-CV-2662-KKM-SPF, 2024 WL 3342227, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24,
2024); see also Padilla v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 23-CV-60669,
2023 WL 4014700, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 12, 2023) (finding the complaint
5 Plaintiff claimed generally that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681. ECF No.
7 at 4. It appears that the more specific basis for the first of Plaintiff’s claims is based
on an alleged violation of § 1681e(b) which provides: “Whenever a consumer reporting
agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom
the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). See ECF No. 7 at 8.
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 9 of 15

Page 10 of 15
insufficient under § 1681e(b) “because Plaintiff fails to factually allege how
Plaintiff's credit report is inaccurate and makes solely conclusory
allegations as to the unreasonableness of Defendants’ investigative
procedures”).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify any specific false or
inaccurate information provided in his credit report. Plaintiff provided only
vague and conclusory assertions which are not sufficient to state a claim.
Leonard v. F.B.I., 405 F. App’x 386, 387 (11th Cir. 2010) (a “plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.’ ”) (quoted in Adams v. Experian Info. Sols.,
Inc., No. 1:23-CV-02522-SDG-JEM, 2023 WL 12015506, at *2 (N.D. Ga.
Oct. 23, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:23-CV-02522-
SDG, 2024 WL 5339291 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2024) (noting that plaintiff did
not “sufficiently allege that either tradeline at issue actually contains any
inaccuracy . . . which is an essential element of her claims” under the
FCRA). Thus, Plaintiff did nothing more than present conclusory
allegations, and those are insufficient to state a viable FCRA claim.
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 10 of 15

Page 11 of 15
Furthermore, a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1681i(3) 6 if the
consumer fails to provide the consumer reporting agency with sufficient
specificity to identify the inaccurate or incomplete information. 	See Rucker,
2024 WL 5397163, at *4 (concluding that unspecified discrepancies and
inaccuracies were insufficient to state a claim). In other words, the
consumer must identify for the agency “what item or items of information
are in dispute.” 2024 WL 5397163, at *4. Without such information, an
agency’s duty under the FCRA is not triggered and it need not “respond to
the letters or “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the disputed item(s).”
Id. (citing to Barreto v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 1:22-CV-04941-VMC-
RDC, 2023 WL 4047693, at *3 (N.D. Ga. May 25, 2023), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 122CV04941VMCRDC, 2023 WL 4996555
(N.D. Ga. July 19, 2023) (dismissing § 1681e(b) claim because plaintiff did
not “identify any purported inaccuracies at all.”). When a complaint is
missing “details regarding the nature of the disputes or the alleged
6 Plaintiff’s second claim challenged whether Defendants made a “reasonable
reinvestigation” of disputed information under § 1681i. ECF No. 7 at 5. That statute
permits a consumer reporting agency to “terminate a reinvestigation of information
disputed by a consumer . . . if the agency reasonably determines that the dispute by the
consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure by a consumer to
provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.” 15 U.S.C. §
1681i(a)(3)(A).
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 11 of 15

Page 12 of 15
inaccuracies,” it is a “fatal” omission to a plaintiff’s claims. Barreto, 2023
WL 4047693, at *3; see also De Koning v. Trans Union LLC, No.
25-CV-23331, 2026 WL 444957, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2026) (“Blanket
and conclusory assertions that a report was inaccurate are insufficient to
satisfy a plaintiff's burden”). In this case, because Plaintiff’s complaint fails
to sufficiently allege facts in support of his FCRA claims, the motion to
dismiss should be granted.
In light of the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state
a claim, there is no need to address Defendants’ additional argument that
Plaintiff’s claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged a “concrete injury.”
ECF No. 25 at 7-8. That argument pertains to damages and remedies, but
there is no need to address those issues when the complaint fails to state a
claim.
Finally, Defendants request that this case be dismissed without
providing Plaintiff with another opportunity to file an amended pleading.
ECF No. 25 at 8-10. The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s
complaint is a “shotgun pleading,” that is, the complaint is “replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 12 of 15

Page 13 of 15
F.3d 1313, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015). It also fails to separate “into a different
count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. 7
Moreover, it asserts “multiple claims against multiple defendants without
specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or
omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against.” 	Id. at
1323. In this action, the three separate companies are singularly
referenced as “the Defendants,” which fails to comply with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Even so, the
complaint presented enough information to determine that it fails to state a
claim; there is no need to dismiss the complaint as “an impermissible
shotgun pleading” as urged by Defendants. ECF No. 25 at 9.
However, Defendants also request that Plaintiff not be provided
additional opportunities to file an amended pleading. 	Id. 	The point is well
taken that the pleading served on the Defendants was a “second amended
complaint,” ECF No. 7, meaning that Plaintiff was already provided two
prior opportunities to file a viable complaint. 	See ECF Nos. 4, 6. It is also
7 Plaintiff’s complaint included a “count one,” but presented multiple claims within
that count. ECF No. 7 at 8. It appears Plaintiff attempted to assert three different
violations of the FCRA, none of which provide identification of the “inaccurate
information.”
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15
true that in responding to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff did not
request leave to amend should the Court find the motion to dismiss had
merit. Further, it is noteworthy that one of the prior Orders directing
Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint pointed out that Plaintiff’s first
amended complaint “does not clarify what was false . . . .” ECF No. 6 at 2.
Plaintiff was provided another opportunity to “provide facts which identify
what information was false and why” in the second amended complaint. 	Id.
at 4. Plaintiff did not comply with that instruction when filing the second
amended complaint. The Court has little reason to believe Plaintiff would
do so if given another opportunity. Thus, it is recommended that the
motion to dismiss be granted and this case be dismissed with prejudice.
See Abdulla v. S. Bank, No. 22-12037, 2023 WL 2988135, at *2 (11th Cir.
Apr. 18, 2023) (“if a pro se litigant files an amended complaint without
substantially fixing the identified deficiencies in the original complaint,
dismissal with prejudice may be warranted”) (citing to Jackson v. Bank of
Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018)).
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion to dismiss, ECF
No. 25, be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No.
7, be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 19, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 1:25cv146-AW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 28 Filed 03/19/26 Page 15 of 15