United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Motion of Defendant Checkr,
Inc., ("Checkr") to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
(ECF #23). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss is granted.
and Procedural Background
Christopher Twumasi-Ankrah brings this action against
Defendant Checkr, a consumer reporting agency, for violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15
U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. See Amended Complaint
(ECF #20) Plaintiff alleges that he was a driver for Uber and
that Uber submitted his name to Defendant and requested that
Checkr provide a routine background screening report. (ECF
#20, ¶¶ 6, 8) Checkr performed the background
screening, which included Plaintiffs driving history abstract
provided by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles
("BMV"). The driving history provided by the BMV
included three accidents that Plaintiff was allegedly
involved in on October 23, 2015? December 19, 2015
and February 17, 2017. As Checkr was allegedly aware, the BMV
includes in its driving history abstracts of all accidents
that a driver was involved in, regardless of
fault(Id. ¶¶ 11) Checkr did not undertake
any further measures to determine whether Plaintiff was at
fault in any of the three accidents and furnished a Report to
Uber that showed Plaintiff was involved in the three
accidents without indicating whether he was at fault.
(Id. ¶¶ 12-13) Upon receiving the Report
from Checkr, Uber terminated Plaintiffs contract due to the
accidents contained in the Report. Plaintiff believes that
Uber terminated the contract because it assumed Plaintiff was
at fault in all of the accidents reported by Checkr.
(Id. ¶¶ 18-19)
asserts that he was not at fault in at least two of the
accidents, the December 19, 2015 and the February 17, 2017
accidents. Plaintiff was found not guilty to the charges
against him in the December 19, 2015 accident and was the
victim of a hit-and-run in the February 17, 2017 accident.
Plaintiff submitted the Court's Order finding him not
guilty with respect to the December 2015 accident and the
Police Crash Report regarding the February 17, 2017 accident
to Checkr to dispute the accuracy of the report that it
provided to Uber. In response to Plaintiffs dispute, Checkr
responded that the original report was accurate and refused
to supplement or amend the report. (Id.
alleges Checkr failed to take any steps to determine whether
Plaintiff was at fault in any of the accidents listed in the
BMV driving abstract and thus failed to verify that all
material information regarding the accidents was included in
Plaintiffs report before furnishing it to Uber. (Id.
¶32) As such, Plaintiff asserts that Checkr has violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act's requirement that a
consumer reporting agency "must follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information
concerning the individual about whom the report
relates." (Id. ¶ 36-37).
now moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs Claim pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Plaintiff has filed a brief in
opposition and Defendant has filed a reply brief in support.
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) allows a defendant to test the legal sufficiency of
a complaint without being subject to discovery. See
Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 341 F.3d 559, 566
(6th Cir. Ohio 2003). In evaluating a motion to
dismiss, the court must construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its factual
allegations as true, and draw reasonable inferences in
favorable of the plaintiff. See Directv, Inc. v.
Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. Ky.
2007). The court will not, however, accept conclusions of law
or unwarranted inferences cast in the form of factual
allegations. See Gregory v. Shelby County, 220 F.3d
433, 446 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2000). In order to
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide the
grounds of the entitlement to relief, which requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action. See Bell All Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). That is,
"[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that
all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if
doubtful in fact)." Id. (internal citation
omitted); see Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v.
City of Cleveland, No. 06-3823, 2007 WL 2768285, at *2
(6th Cir. Ohio Sept. 25, 2007) (recognizing that
the Supreme Court "disavowed the oft-quoted Rule
12(b)(6) standard of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)")- Accordingly,
the claims set forth in a complaint must be plausible, rather
than conceivable. See Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974.
motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6), the court's inquiry
is limited to the content of the complaint, although matters
of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of
the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint may also be
taken into account. See Amini v. Oberlin College,
259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. Ohio 2001); Bowers
vo Wynne, 615 F.3d 455, 470 (6th Cir.
2010)(courts may take judicial notice of "administrative
agency policy statements and filings with those
Amended Complaint asserts a single violation of §
1681e(b) of the FCRA. In order to state a claim for a
violation § 1681e(b), a plaintiff must plead facts
sufficient to establish the following four elements:
(1) the defendant reported inaccurate information about the
(2) the defendant either negligently or willfully failed to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of the ...