Fluker v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTONIO LYNN FLUKER,
Plaintiff,
: CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-CV-1833
: (JUDGE MARIANI)
V. 	: (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom)
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants .
.J 	ORDER
AND NOW, THIS _k_	'6AY OF MARCH 2026, upon de novo review of Chief
Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom's Report and Recommendation (''R&R") (Doc. 7) , Plaintiffs
objection thereto (Doc. 8), and all relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiffs objection (Doc. 8) is SUSTAINED .
Plaintiff objects to the R&R 's conclusion that his claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1681e(b) should be dismissed because he has not presented sufficient facts
to support the claim. 	(Doc. 8 at 1-2 .) The Court agrees. 	Pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1681e(b) which addresses "Accuracy of report," "[w]henever a
consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." 	15
U.S.C . § 1681e(b). The R&R presents the following analysis of Plaintiffs§
1681e claim :
While Fluker seemingly attempts to cure the defect previously
cited by supplementing his Section 1681 e claim with additional
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 9 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 4

factual allegations, the amended complaint again does nothing
to 	demonstrate 	the 	defendants 	failed 	to 	follow 	reasonable
procedures. 	Instead, 	the 	amended 	complaint 	appears 	to
presume 	that, 	because 	Fluker's 	consumer 	report 	allegedly
contained 	inaccurate 	information 	that 	was 	distributed 	to
Synchrony Bank and other creditors , such procedures must have
been absent. This is a bare legal conclusion, supported by no
fact. 	Accordingly , based 	on 	these 	allegations, 	we 	cannot
conclude that Fluker has shown more than a mere possibility of
a Section 1681e violation , and so we conclude that the claim
should be dismissed .
(Doc . 7 at 11 .) 	Although the Court finds that Plaintiffs assertions on the
issue of the reasonableness of the reporting procedures is speculative rather
than factual , relevant caselaw suggests that Plaintiffs§ 1681e(b) claim
should be allowed to go forward. 	In considering a motion to dismiss a 15
U.S.C. § 1681e(b) claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
Hutchinson v. Carco Grp. , Inc ., Civ . A. No. CV 15-1570 , 2015 WL 5698283
(E.D . Pa. Sept. 29, 2015), assessed the appropriateness of a sparse pleading
regarding procedures used by the defendant. The District Court stated that
the defendant, Carco ,
correctly notes that the Complaint does not include any
factual allegations concerning Carco's procedures, much
less facts permitting us to assess the reasonableness of
those procedures . Rather , the Complaint simply alleges
that 	Plaintiffs 	consumer 	report 	contained 	inaccurate
information, i.e ., the 1996 felony conviction, and then
baldly 	alleges 	that Carco failed 	to follow reasonable
procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of
that information.
2015 WL 5698283, at *5 . The District Court then reasoned that,
[i]n 	spite of these sparse allegations, 	we conclude that the
Complaint's 	lack 	of 	specific 	facts 	on 	which 	to 	ground 	an
2
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 9 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 4

assessment of reasonableness is not fatal to Plaintiffs claims in
light of the intensely factual nature of the reasonableness inquiry
and the reality that all information regarding Carce's procedures
for verifying information are within Carce's control. 	Moreover , in
Philbin 	[v. 	Trans 	Union 	Corp ., 	101 	F.3d 	957 	(3d 	Cir.1996)
(abrogation on other grounds recognized in Cortez v. 	Trans
Union , LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 708 (3d Cir . 2010))] 1 the Third Circuit
specifically 	considered 	the 	plaintiffs 	burden 	of 	proof 	in
connection with the reasonableness prong of a§ 1681e(b) claim
and allowed for the possibility that a plaintiff may establish his
prima 	facie 	case 	as 	to that prong 	by establishing 	a mere
inaccuracy , thereby leaving it to the defendant to establish that
the procedures it used were reasonable. 	Philbin, 101 F.3d at
964-66 (citations omitted); see a/so id. at 965 (observing that the
justification for such an approach is that inaccuracies are caused
"by 	an 	instrumentality 	under 	the 	exclusive 	control 	of 	the
defendant ," and that "[s]uch a defendant is in a far better position
to 	prove that 	reasonable 	procedures 	were 	followed 	than 	a
plaintiff is to prove the opposite"); Dively [v. Trans Union , LLC ,
Civ. A. No. 11-3607 , 2012 WL 246095, at *2 (citing Philbin , 101
F.3d at 964-66)]. If that burden of proof is to apply in this case,
as 	it may, 	it would 	be illogical to 	require 	Plaintiff to plead
additional facts in his Complaint that he will have no burden of
proving at trial. Thus, we reject Carce's argument that Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
based on 	his failure to allege sufficient facts 	regarding 	the
reasonableness of Carce's procedures.
Hutchinson , 2015 WL 5698283, at *5. 	Because the Magistrate Judge's
screening procedure employed here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
mirrors review under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard considered in Hutchinson,
see supra, the Court will apply the reasoning set out therein to the situation
1 As set out in Cortez , 617 F.3d at 718 , 721 & n.39 , the abrogation of Philbin is related to the
standard for award of punitive damages based on willful violation of the statute pursuant to Safeco
Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 60 , 69 (2007) (to prove a willful violation of the Fair Cred it
Reporting Act a consumer must prove that a consumer reporting agency either knowingly or recklessly
violated the requirements of the Act) .
3
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 9 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 4

here. 	Recognizing the "intensely factual nature of the reasonableness inquiry
and the reality that all information regarding [Defendants'] procedures for
verifying information are within [Defendants'] control ," see supra, the Court
concludes that Plaintiffs§ 1681e(b) claim should go forward .
2. 	The R&R is ADOPTED IN PART for the reasons set forth therein and as discussed
above .
3. 	Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc . 5) goes forward as to his claims pursuant to 15
U.S.C. § 1681 i and 15 U.S.C. § 1681 e(b ).
4. 	The above -captioned action is remanded to Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom
for further proceedings.
obert D. Maria n·
United States District Judge
4
Case 3:25-cv-01833-RDM-DFB Document 9 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 4