The 10th Circuit court denied the plaintiff’s claims but granted him an opportunity to amend his complaint.
10/05/2023 12:35 P.M.
2 minute read
In a recent case, Sifuentes v. Capital One (PDF), David Angel Sifuentes III, a pro se plaintiff, alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the defendant, Capital One.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reviewed the plaintiff’s claims, emphasizing their lack of merit and failure to establish proper venue. Despite this, the court granted Sifuentes an opportunity to amend his complaint.
Background
The plaintiff, a noted “serial filer” who filed suits against 11 companies in the last six months alone, claimed that Capital One offered him credit but later denied his application due to a credit report “freeze,” resulting in damage to his credit score and emotional distress.
The court’s review highlighted several key points. First, it addressed the plaintiff’s FCRA claim. The plaintiff had alleged violations of certain provisions within the FCRA related to credit reporting agencies and furnishers of information to these agencies. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim under the FCRA due to various legal constraints, including a lack of a private right of action for specific FCRA provisions and failure to meet necessary notification requirements.
Next, the court examined the plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff stated that Capital One’s actions caused him emotional distress, but the court found these allegations lacked factual support and failed to meet the legal standards required to establish such a claim.
Next, the court addressed the issue of venue. The plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish proper venue as required by federal law. The court explained the relevant legal provisions regarding venue and pointed out the lack of necessary information in the plaintiff’s complaint to support the venue in the specified court.
The court, acknowledging the plaintiff’s pro se status, granted him an opportunity to amend his complaint to address the identified deficiencies. The plaintiff was instructed to file an amended complaint by a specified deadline. Failure to comply could lead to the court recommending the dismissal of the case.
Additionally, the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision dismissing the claim with prejudice.
Read the court order here (PDF).
Remember, subscribe to ACA Daily and Member Alerts under your My ACA profile when logged in to acainternational.org to receive updates on the ACA Huddle.