Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc.
134 F.3d 41, 1997 WL 824816 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allows a civil cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n against a 'user of information' who willfully obtains a consumer credit report under false pretenses, as prohibited by the criminal provision in 15 U.S.C. § 1681q, even if the user did not deny credit or increase the charge for credit.
Facts:
- Deborah Northrop was in the process of obtaining a mortgage to refinance her home through Mortgage Master.
- As part of the mortgage process, Mortgage Master requested and received Northrop’s consumer credit report from United Data Services.
- Northrop’s credit report indicated that Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., d/b/a Hoffman Honda of Avon, had made an inquiry and received her consumer credit report on July 3, 1995.
- At the time Hoffman requested Northrop’s credit report, she was conducting no business with Hoffman of any kind.
- Mortgage Master subsequently demanded that Northrop explain the basis for Hoffman’s inquiry.
- On or about October 3, 1995, Northrop contacted Hoffman to find out who had requested her report and why, but she was given no answer.
- On or about October 5, 1995, a Hoffman employee told Northrop that the company’s computerized records had been destroyed, and her subsequent telephone calls to Hoffman went unreturned.
- Northrop alleged that defendants John Doe #1 and/or John Doe #2, Hoffman employees, utilized Hoffman’s facilities to obtain her credit report; defendant XYZ Corporation and/or its employee, Larry F. Katzke, requested the Does to obtain the report; and defendant Richard Roe requested XYZ Corporation and/or Katzke, and/or the Does, to utilize Hoffman’s facilities for the report.
Procedural Posture:
- Deborah Northrop filed a complaint against Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., and other individual and corporate defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- Northrop's complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Northrop's complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Northrop had not stated a claim under the FCRA and declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
- Northrop, as the appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) permit a civil cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n against a 'user of information' who willfully obtains a consumer credit report under false pretenses, in violation of the criminal provision in 15 U.S.C. § 1681q, even if the user did not deny credit or increase the charge for credit?
Opinions:
Majority - José A. Cabranes
Yes, the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows a civil cause of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n against a 'user of information' who willfully obtains a consumer credit report under false pretenses, as prohibited by 15 U.S.C. § 1681q, even if the user did not deny credit or increase the charge for credit. The court found that the district court erred in dismissing Northrop's complaint. The plain language of § 1681n imposes liability upon 'user[s] of information which willfully fail[] to comply with any requirement imposed under [the FCRA].' The court determined that § 1681q, which imposes criminal penalties for obtaining consumer information under false pretenses, constitutes a 'requirement' whose willful violation supports civil liability under § 1681n. This interpretation aligns with the rulings of other Courts of Appeals. The court clarified that its prior ruling in DiGianni v. Stern's did not limit the definition of 'user' to situations involving credit denial or increase, as DiGianni did not address liability under § 1681q. Hoffman, as an automobile dealership that regularly requests credit reports, is a 'prototypical user of credit reports' and therefore qualifies as a 'user of information.' The court also held that individual employees may qualify as 'users' if they obtained credit information for personal, non-employment-related reasons or requested others to obtain it on their behalf, distinguishing them from employees acting solely within the scope of their employment without an independent interest. The court further noted that under liberal pleading principles, a complaint’s failure to cite the correct statute does not require dismissal if the factual allegations support a meritorious legal claim, as Northrop’s complaint implied obtaining the report under false pretenses.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of civil liability under the FCRA for entities and individuals who access consumer credit reports. It clarifies that criminal prohibitions within the FCRA can serve as a basis for civil actions, providing consumers with a powerful tool against unauthorized or improperly obtained credit report inquiries, even when no credit decision is explicitly affected. This ruling strengthens consumer privacy by holding 'users' accountable for the manner in which they obtain information, and it sets a precedent for how employees may be held individually liable if they misuse employer resources to acquire credit reports for personal gain.
