• Plaintiff's State Law Claims for Negligence and Wantonness were preempted by the FCRA
  • August 4, 2009 | Author: Martin Thornthwaite
  • Law Firm: Strasburger & Price, LLP - Frisco Office
  • Wilson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57234 (S.D. Ala. July 7, 2009)

    Facts: Plaintiff alleged that Defendant collection agency had improperly reported a collection account on his consumer report. Plaintiff claimed that he had never heard of or been contacted by Defendant and was unaware of any such collection account. Despite two separate communications to Defendant, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant ignored his correspondence and continued to report the debt on his credit file. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and also asserted state law claims for negligence and wantonness. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court held that § 1681t(b)(1)(F) of the FCRA preempted the state law claims and granted Defendant’s motion.

    • Preemption. Plaintiff’s negligence and wantonness claims fell within Defendant’s duties as a furnisher of credit information under § 1681s-2  and were subject to preemption under § 1681t(b)(1)(F).