Ford v. Transunion LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY JEROME FORD JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANSUNION LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________ /
Case No. 25-13432
F. Kay Behm
U.S. District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2) AND
DIMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1)
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Anthony Ford Jr. filed a Complaint against Defendant
Transunion on October 28, 2025, alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis, which the court finds facially sufficient.
ECF No. 2. The court thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons set forth below, the court
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to state
a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. 	ANALYSIS
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 8

2
When an individual applies to proceed in forma pauperis, their
claim is subject to the screening standards established in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). 	Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 865-66 (6th Cir. 2000).
Congress introduced this subsection with an understanding that “a
litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public,
unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from
filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” 	Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Under this subsection, a court may dismiss a
claim if it: “(i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a pleading must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The standard “does
not require ‘detailed factual allegations’ but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 	Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint will not suffice “if it
tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 8

3
Id. at 678. Additionally, a claim must exhibit “facial plausibility,”
meaning it includes facts sufficient to allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” 	Id.
Section 1681i of the FCRA requires consumer reporting agencies,
like Transunion, to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of a consumer’s
file if the consumer disputes the “completeness or accuracy of any item
of information” in the file. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). “If, after any
reinvestigation,” the information disputed by the consumer “is found to
be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified,” the consumer
reporting agency must delete or modify that item of information from
the file of the consumer “based on the results of the reinvestigation” and
“promptly notify the furnisher of that information that the information
has been modified or deleted from the file of the consumer.” 	Id.
§ 1681i(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). To state the first element of a claim under
§ 1681e(b) (failure to adopt and implement reasonable procedures to
ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information in his report),
a plaintiff may allege that a credit reporting agency reported either
“patently incorrect” information about them or information that was
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 8

4
“misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it [could have
been] expected to have an adverse effect [on the consumer].” 	Twumasi-
Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc., 954 F.3d 938, 942 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation
omitted).
Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to state a claim on which
relief could be granted. His factual allegations consist of, in full:
Plaintiffs consumer report prepared by Defendant
contains inaccurate and contradictory
information relating to an Extra Credit Union
auto loan . . . . The account is reported as
charged off since April 2022, yet Defendant’s
report also shows payments made after the
charge-off period, which is factually impossible
and misleading. The high balance of the account
is reported as $7,160 instead of $7,160.34, and
the charged off balance is reported as $4,773,
creating inconsistent and inaccurate data.
Plaintiff filed disputes with TransUnion on July
10, 2025, August 15, 2025, and September 22,
2025, specifically identifying these errors and
requesting correction or deletion. Despite
receiving these disputes, Defendant verified the
information as accurate and failed to correct or
delete the inaccurate items. Defendant failed to
provide the method of verification, name of the
person verifying, or any documentation showing
how the information was confirmed. As a result,
Defendant continued to report false, incomplete,
and unverifiable information to third parties.
ECF No. 1, PageID.1-2.
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 8

5
In that explanation, Plaintiff makes only two allegations of
inaccurate data and/or failure to reasonably investigate: 1) that the
report shows payments made on a charged-off amount, which he says is
factually impossible, and 2) that the report apparently does not list the
cents in reporting an account balance of $7,160 instead of $7,160.34.
The court ignores the unexplained allegation that “the charged off
balance is reported as $4,773” is “inconsistent” because the alleged
inconsistency is not explained in any way. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 677-78.
As to the first, the identification of a debt “as being ‘charged off,’
does not itself resolve a consumer’s debt with respect to that account or
eliminate any applicable balance.” 	Lensendro v. TransUnion LLC, No.
3:25-cv-128, 2025 LX 192699, at *19 (D. Conn. Apr. 14, 2025)
(citing In re Anderson, 884 F.3d 382, 385 (2d Cir. 2018) (explaining that
a debt is “charged off” when “the bank changed the outstanding debt
from a receivable to a loss in its own accounting books” notwithstanding
the fact “that the debt remain[s] unpaid”)); see also Ostreicher v. Chase
Bank USA, N.A., No. 19-CV-8175 (CS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217024,
2020 WL 6809059 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2020) (“[A] creditor charging off or
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 8

6
writing off a debt is simply an internal accounting action by which the
creditor stops carrying the debt as a receivable because the chances of
collecting it are so low.”). Thus a consumer may, in fact, still continue
to pay down a debt that has been marked as charged-off, and “consumer
reporting agencies may lawfully report accurate information regarding
closed accounts, discontinued lines of credit, or debts marked as charged
off.” 	Lensendro, 2025 LX 192699 at *19 (collecting cases); see also Shaw
v. Equifax Info. Sols., Inc., 204 F. Supp. 3d 956, 960 (E.D. Mich. 2016)
(“the FCRA allows reporting of the charge-off status for seven years”).
Plaintiff’s allegation that his Transunion report shows that he
continued to make payments on his debt does not suffice to state a
claim of either “patently incorrect” or “misleading” information.
As to the second, courts have considered the issue and pointed out
that “the use of dollar amounts without decimal points plus the
corresponding amounts of cents” does not suffice to “show that the
information and the manner in which it is conveyed make the report
‘patently incorrect or . . . misleading in such a way and to such an
extent that it can be expected to have an adverse effect.’” 	Lensendro,
2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70354 at *16 (applying the standard in Mader v.
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 8

7
Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 56 F.4th 264, 269 (2d Cir. 2023)) (further
citations omitted); see also Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc., 954 F.3d
938, 942 (6th Cir. 2020) (same standard). Absent any allegations
explaining specifically why the cents value is important to the case at
hand, reporting the correct dollar value of an account balance is neither
“patently” incorrect nor misleading in a manner that is likely to have an
adverse effect on Plaintiff.
Therefore, neither of Plaintiff’s two purported factual inaccuracies
suffice to state a claim that the report contains “patently incorrect”
information or “misleading” in a way that could be expected to have an
adverse effect on him. 	See 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). Because he fails to
prove that threshold issue, neither of the alleged inaccuracies show a
failure by Transunion to conduct a reasonable investigation or a need to
delete or modify any information upon that reinvestigation. §§ 1681i(a),
(a)(5); Lensendro v. TransUnion LLC, 2025 LX 192699, at *11 (“Section
1681i does not require consumer reporting agencies, following a
reinvestigation, to reach the same conclusions as the consumer, to
incorporate into a consumer report information the agency has
determined to be inaccurate, or to remove from a consumer report
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 7 of 8

8
information the agency has confirmed to be accurate.”). Plaintiff’s own
Complaint states that Transunion conducted an investigation and does
not explain how that reinvestigation was inadequate. ECF No. 1,
PageID.2 (“Defendant verified the information as accurate”). None of
his allegations, therefore, show willful or negligent noncompliance with
the statute. §§ 1681n, 1681o.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief could be
granted. While the Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court declines to grant permission
to appeal in forma pauperis, as Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and any
appeal would not be taken in good faith. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
This is a final order that closes the case.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 4, 2025 	s/ F. Kay Behm
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-13432-FKB-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/04/25 Page 8 of 8