- Illinois Court Finds Pro Se Pleading Sufficient, FACTA Provision Not Vague and Ambiguous
- March 10, 2009 | Author: Paul L. Myers
- Law Firm: Strasburger & Price, LLP - Frisco Office
Kubas v. Std. Parking Corp. Il, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6775 (N.D. Ill.Jan. 29, 2009)
Facts: Plaintiff pro se brought a purported class action alleging violations of § 1681c(g) of the FCRA. Plaintiff alleges he received a computer-generated credit card receipt from Defendants, at an O'Hare airport parking facility, displaying more than the last five digits of his credit card number and the card expiration date. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Defendants’ motion was denied.
- Pleadings. To survive a motion to dismiss: (1) the complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds on which it rests; and (2) its allegations must actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the “speculative level.”
- FACTA Requirements. Section 1681c(g)(1) provides: "[N]o person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction."
- Willful Claim. Plaintiff adequately alleged a “willful” violation of the FCRA by making the following allegations: FACTA was enacted in 2003 and gave merchants three years within which to comply; Defendants knew about the requirement; and most of Defendants' peers brought their processes into compliance with FACTA but Defendants failed to comply.
- Willful Claim. The court rejected the Defendants’ argument that they cannot be found to have willfully violated § 1681c(g)(1) because it is "vague and ambiguous." A law is void for vagueness if it fails to give fair warning of what is prohibited, if it fails to provide explicit standards for the persons responsible for the enforcement and thus creates a risk of discriminatory enforcement, and if its lack of clarity chills lawful behavior. When the statute regulates business, it is subject to a less strict vagueness test than criminal statutes.