W.D.N.C.: Horne v. Credit Acceptance Corp & Horne v. Experian- Pro Se Silence and FCRA

Summary:

In paired  cases,  Erica Horne  brought  pro se  actions against  Credit Acceptance Corp.,  Experian, Equifax and Transunion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,  which, as the magistrate held,   "in its entirety contain[ed] the following factual allegation:"

Plaintiff, a consumer, sent a written dispute on or about October 28, 2022, to Defendant, a data furnisher, disputing the completeness and/or accuracy of account Credit Acceptance Corp. – account number XXXXXXXXXX,1 which was in a consumer reports [sic] concerning Plaintiff prepared, maintained and published to others by Defendant, and Defendant negligently and/or willfully failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy of the date in consumer reports concerning Plaintiff, and investigate, delete, or modify the disputed information, and provide a response to Plaintiff within 30 days of receipt of Plaintiff’s dispute.

In ruling on the  motion by Credit Acceptance to compel arbitration, the magistrate found  that, despite Horne's pro se status and her silence, that there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. (Horne had the option to reject this clause within 30 days, which she did not exercise.)  The magistrate,  however,  recommended that the motion by Credit Acceptance to dismiss be denied without prejudice.

In the district court, however,  the credit bureaus  responded to Horne's same pro se silence  by successfully moving for a judgment on the pleadings. There the court  reviewed the motion under Rule 12(c) and determined that the complaint  failed to adequately plead inaccuracies in her credit report, which is necessary for claims under sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the FCRA.    Further,  Horne's failure to respond to the  motion for judgment on the pleadings by the given deadline despite being explicitly warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.  

Commentary:

Whether the magistrate was simply more patient or in a display of subtle antagonism,  subjecting  Credit Acceptance to the costs and further delays of  arbitration validates the more aggressive course taken by the CRAs.