Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance (Eastern District of N.C. (E.D. N.C) 2026)

Case details
Full caption
SHANIERRA CURRY v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Eastern District of North Carolina (E.D. N.C)
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
ORDER 16] is in of 1]. 7] OJ. of 23of to Id. Curry v. Capital One Auto Finance Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No . 5:25-CV-164-BO-KS SHANIERRA CURRY , ) ) Plaintiff , ) ) V . ) ) CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE , ) ) Defendant. ) This cause comes before the Court on defendant ' s motion to dism iss for failure to state a claim . [DE 14]. Plaintiff responded [DE and defendant replied [D E 17]. The Court also considers plaintiffs motion for leave to file her second proposed amended complaint [DE 16]. In this posture , the motions are ripe for resolution. For the following reasons , the motion to dismiss granted and lea v e to amend is denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Shanierra Curry filed a complaint Wake County Small Claims Court against defendant Capital One Auto Finance , alleging violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Capital One removed the action to this Court. [DE Plaintiff moved to remand [DE but withdrew her motion to remand and moved to amend her complaint [DE 1 In its order July , 2025 [DE 13] , the Court denied plaintiffs first motion to amend the complaint as futile , also noting that it sought to assert new claims based on fictitious provisions the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act (ITPA) , and concluding that plaintiff likely used artificial intelligence draft her first proposed amended complaint. That order cautioned plaintiff that the Court will not tolerate " computer generated morass that only ser v es to waste court t ime and resources ." Dockets.Justia.com
v. of of of of 1-1id. Id. 14]of of in of v. id.v. ."' v. (quoting Thornock Corp . The Presiding Bishop The Church Jesu s Christ Latter-Day Saints, No. 3: 25-CV-56 , 2025 WL 1900314 , at *4 (E.D. Va. July 9, 2025) (unpublished)). Plaintiff's original complaint alleges that she " noticed unauthorized inquiries on her credit report and contacted the credit reporting agency, which directed her to Capital One Auto Finance. " [DE , 17] . De spite plaintiff's repeated r eq uests , at 118-12, defendant Capital One " refused to remove the inquiries " from her file. at 114. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. [DE . Plaintiff responded with a renewed motion for leave to amend her complaint [DE 16] , attaching a second proposed amended complaint [DE 16-1]. Plaintiff's second motion to amend the complaint also contained fictitious citations. DISCUSSION A 1 2(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted tests the complaint ' s legal and factual sufficiency. See Fed. R . Civ . P . 1 2(b)(6) . The focus is on the pleading requirements under the Federal Rules, not the proof needed to succeed on a claim . " Federal Rule Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief , order to give the defendant fair notice w hat the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests ." Bell At l . Corp. Twombly, 550 U .S . 544 , 555 (2007) ( cleaned up). This standard does not require detailed factual allegations , , but it " demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. " Nadendla WakeMed, 24 F.4th 299 , 305 (4t h Cir. 2022) ( citation omitted). " To surv i ve a motion to dismiss , a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter , accepted as true , to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on it s face Ashcroft Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 , 678 (2009) (quoting Tw ombl y, 550 U.S. at 570). For a claim to be plausible, its factual content must permit the court to " draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. " Id . 2
of 15 §§ 1681 1-1 of 231681 of 15 §§ )(1)of F. n. affd v. of .... to of see,~' of [vF. of .... F. F. ...of to F. of 13p. 5] is to 16]to R. P. to of of Plaintiffs original complaint asserts five separate breach duty claims under U.S.C. s-2(b )(l)(A)-(E). [DE ] . In its order July , 2025 [DE 13], the Court explained , Section s-2(b) imposes certain duties on " furnishers information. " U.S.C. 1681 s-2(b . " The FCRA uses the term 'furnishers information' but does not define it. " Ross v . Washington Mut. Bank, 566 Supp . 2d 468, 475 l (E .D . N.C. 2008) , sub nom. Ross F.D.I.C. , 625 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2010). Courts interpret " furnishers information include various types creditors , such as banks and other lenders , that provide credit information about their customers to other entities that issue consumer reports about the customers' credit worthiness ." Id. ; DiMezza v . First USA Bank, Inc. , 103 F . Supp . 2d 1296 , 1299 (D.N.M. 2000). Section [1681s]-2(b) does not impose duties on businesses that merely make credit inquiries, so-called " users credit reports ." Glanton . DirecTV, LLC], 172 Supp . 3d [890 , ] 897 . Curry fails to plausibly allege that Capital One acted as a furnisher information . Curry merely alleges that Capital One accessed her credit report This allegation does not suffice. See ,~ ' Ross , 566 Supp. 2d at 475 n.l ; DiMezza , 103 Supp . 2d at 1299 . Curry appears to misunderstand the credit reporting system. For example , Curry faults Capital One for failing to remove allegedly erroneous credit inquiries from her credit report . Yet, the FCRA "does not permit users credit reports remove credit inquiries from consumers ' credit reports. " Glanton , 172 Supp. 3d at 897 . Thus , Curry fails to plausibly allege an FCRA breach duty claim. [DE , (referring to the first proposed amended complaint, denying le ave to amend as futile) (citations to proposed amended complaint omitted) . For the same reasons as articulated in that order , plaintiff fails to state a claim , and defendant ' s motion to dismiss the complaint granted. The Court also addresses plaintiffs motion for leave file a second amended complaint. By the time plaintiff filed her motion [DE , she had already been warned that the Court would not tolerate fabricated citations . Leave amend a complaint should be freely gi v en when justice so requires. Fed . Civ. l 5(a). Leave amend should only be denied where there is bad faith on the part the moving party , the amended would be futile , or granting leave would prejudice the non-moving party. See Johnson v . Orow e at Food s Co ., 785 F. 2d 503 , 509 (4th Cir. 1986). Here , plaintiffs inclusion more fabricated citations in the proposed amended complaint constitutes bad faith . 3
if Nat. Inc.471 of of of of of 15 of 23of of 135] of 13of 15 The motion for leave to amend is also denied because amendment would be futile. " Futility is apparent the proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the applicable rules and accompanying standards[.]" Katyle v . Penn Gaming , , 637 F.3d 462 , (4th Cir. 2011). An amendment is therefore futile where the plaintiff fails to state a facially plausible claim , meaning that the facts pled " allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678. Courts should be liberal in their construction pro s e complaints , but they should not go beyond deciphering the meaning words written in the complaint to attempt to discern the unexpressed intent the plaintiff. Lab e r v . Harve y, 438 F. 3d 404 , 413 (4th Cir. 2006) . In her proposed second amended complaint , plaintiff asserts the same claims as in her original complaint , plus a violation the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) and a violation U.S .C . § 1681b(f) for obtaining improper access to her credit report. The Court's order July , 2025 [DE 13] addressed all these claims in the context plaintiffs fir s t proposed amended complaint. The claims common to the original complaint fail because section 1681 s-2(b) " does not impose duties on businesses that merely make credit inquiries" [DE , p . and the second proposed complaint fails to plausibly allege that defendant acted as a furnisher any information with respect to plaintiff , only as a " user " who made a credit inquiry . Similarly , the UDTPA claim fails because , as the Court already determined , the FCRA " preempts state-law claims that merely restate FCRA claims. " [DE , p. 6]. The remaining claim in the second proposed amended complaint fails because defendant had grounds to reasonably believe it accessed plaintiffs credit report for a proper purpose. To state a FCRA claim for improper acquisition a credit report under U .S. C. § 1681b(f) , a plaintiff must allege " (i) there was a consumer report; (ii) the defendants used or obtained it , (iii) the 4
1: in ,r,r 16If of complaint-even ~day of defendants did so without a permissible statutory purpose , and (iv) the defendants acted with the specified culpable mental state. " King v . Equable Ascent Fin. , LLC , No. 12-CV-443 , 2013 WL 2474377, at *2 (M.D.N.C . June 10, 2013) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs second proposed amended complaint alleges she submitted an identity theft report an effort to remove the credit checks , indicating an imposter may have initiated the credit check . [DE 16-1, , 27 , 38]. so, defendant would have reasonably believed it accessed plaintiff's credit report with a permissible purpose. " Courts have reached the conclusion that there is no violation Section 1681 b when a creditor obtains a credit report due to an imposter's application for credit even though the identity theft victim did not make the application. " Glanton v . DirecTV, LLC , 172 F . Supp . 3d 890 , 896 (D.S.C. 2016) (collecting cases) . Plaintiff provides no plausible alternative motivation for defendant to access her credit report. S ee King , 2013 WL 2474377 , at *3. The proposed construed in the plaintiff's favor - indicates the defendant had grounds to reasonably believe it was accessing her credit report for a permissible purpose. The second proposed amended complaint therefore fails to state a claim and leave to amend is denied as futile. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons , defendant ' s motion to dismiss [DE 14] is GRANTED . Plaintiff's second motion for leave to amend the complaint [DE 16] is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion to strike plaintiff's reply [DE 19] is DENIED as MOOT . The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case . SO ORDERED , this March 2026. STATES 5
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access