United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
case involves allegations of improperly accessing
Plaintiff's credit report. Plaintiff LaRonda Phox
(“Phox”) alleges Defendant Virtuoso Sourcing
Group, LLC (“Virtuoso”) accessed her credit
report without her permission and was not otherwise entitled
to do so. Phox, proceeding pro se, filed a two-count
lawsuit alleging Virtuoso violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§
1692-1692p, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
before the Court is Virtuoso's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted (Doc. 10). Finding Phox failed to
plead all of the required elements for a claim under either
statute, the Court GRANTS Virtuoso's Motion to Dismiss.
March 17, 2017, the Court granted Phox's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and her complaint was filed,
initiating this lawsuit against Virtuoso. While her complaint
does not formally allege any violations of a particular law,
it suggests Virtuoso violated portions of the FCRA and FDCPA.
The complaint states: “[t]he Defendants accessed my
credit bureau report without my permission” and
“[t]he Defendants found out information about me, for
which they were not entitled to.” See (Doc 6
Phox's memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss, she
attempts to clarify her complaint by stating additional facts
supporting her claim including:
Prior to this action, Plaintiff was disputing a debt which
Sprint claimed she owed. As a result of this debt, Virtuoso,
a debt collector, willfully and negligently accessed her
credit report without permissible purposes. Furthermore,
Plaintiff alleges that she never had any contact or business
with Virtuoso. Due to this, Plaintiff alleges Virtuoso
violated the FDCPA and the FCRA.
(Doc. 13 at 1).
argues Phox's complaint should be dismissed for failing
to state a claim and that it violates Rule 8(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure depriving them of proper
notice of the claims asserted against them. Fed.R.Civ.P.
purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test
the legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court assumes the factual
allegations of a complaint are true and construes the facts
in favor of the plaintiff. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 326 (1989). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must
include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds'
of his ‘entitlement to relief' requires more than
label and conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Benton
v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 524 F.3d 866, 870 (8th
complaint does not meet the pleading standard under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, fails to state a claim
under either the FCRA or the FDCPA.
Phox's complaint fails to meet the ...