Leach v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Curtis Leach
v. Civil No. 17-cv-388-PB
Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Curtis Leach has filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1)
that is before this court for preliminary review, pursuant to LR
4.3(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings like Leach’s, which are filed in forma pauperis. See
LR 4.3(d). The magistrate judge may recommend to the district
judge that one or more claims be dismissed if, among other
things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from
the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d). In conducting its preliminary review, the court
construes pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
Case 1:17-cv-00388-PB Document 3 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 4

2
to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citation omitted).
Background
Construed liberally, Leach’s complaint alleges that
Santander Consumer USA, Inc. reported inaccurate information
relating to a car loan to Equifax, Experian, and Transunion,
three credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”). Leach alleges that
inaccurate information from Santander included in credit reports
from those CRAs caused a number of lenders to deny him credit
from November 2015 to March 2016, causing him harm.
Leach obtained credit reports from Equifax, Experian, and
Transunion in January 2017 and identified a number of
inaccuracies in the information Santander had furnished. Leach
seeks damages for Santander’s willful or negligent failure to
follow reasonable procedures in reporting his credit history to
those CRAs, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15
U.S.C. § 1681s-2.
Discussion
The FCRA creates a private cause of action that enables
consumers to sue both CRAs and those who furnish information to
those CRAs, for willful, intentional, or negligent non-
Case 1:17-cv-00388-PB Document 3 Filed 08/31/17 Page 2 of 4

3
compliance with the requirements of the statute. See Chiang v.
Verizon New England, Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 34-36 (1st Cir. 2010).
While furnishers are prohibited by the FRCA from providing
inaccurate information to a CRA, see 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a);
Chiang, 595 F.3d at 35, the reporting of inaccurate information
alone does not give rise to civil liability in a private action.
See Chiang, 595 F.3d at 36 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c)(1)).
If, however, a furnisher fails to comply with its obligation,
under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1), to investigate disputes as to
which it has received notice from a CRA under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681i(a)(2), and to correct any inaccuracies found as a result
of that investigation, the furnisher may then be subject to
private suit by a consumer. See Chiang, 595 F.3d at 36. “A
notice of disputed information provided directly by the consumer
to a furnisher does not trigger a furnisher’s duties under
§ 1681s–2(b).” Chiang, 595 F.3d at 35 n.8.
Here, Leach’s allegation that Santander furnished
inaccurate information to the CRAs, standing alone, does not
give rise to a private right of action under the FCRA. Leach
does not allege that he contacted Experian, Equifax, or
Transunion to dispute the accuracy of Santander’s information,
in a manner that would have triggered the CRAs’ duty to report
nonfrivolous disputes to Santander under 15 U.S.C.
Case 1:17-cv-00388-PB Document 3 Filed 08/31/17 Page 3 of 4

4
§ 1681i(a)(2). Nothing in the record suggests that Santander
breached its duty to investigate disputes as to which it
received notice from a CRA, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-
2(b)(1). Accordingly, Leach has failed to state sufficient
facts to support a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), without
prejudice to refiling if Leach asserts new facts sufficient to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Any objections
to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Failure to
file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court’s order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 31, 2017
cc: Curtis Leach, pro se
Case 1:17-cv-00388-PB Document 3 Filed 08/31/17 Page 4 of 4