Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vullings v. Trans Union, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

July 9, 2015

MICHELLE W. VULLINGS
v.
TRANS UNION, LLC, et al

For MICHELLE W. VULLINGS, Plaintiff: BRENT F. VULLINGS, VULLINGS LAW GROUP LLC, COLLEGEVILLE, PA.

For TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant: ANDREW S. MEYERS, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC, ZIONSVILLE, IN; WILLIAM M. HUSE, LEAD ATTORNEY, SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., ZIONSVILLE, IN; CASEY GREEN, SIDKOFF, PINCUS & GREEN, P.C., PHILADELPHIA, PA.

For EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant: HAYLEY A. HALDEMAN, PRO HAC VICE, JONES DAY, PITTSBURGH, PA; MOHAMMAD A. GHIASUDDIN, KAPLIN STEWART MELOFF REITER & STEIN PC, BLUE BELL, PA.

For EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant: JOHN C. MCNAMARA, LEAD ATTORNEY, CHRISTIE SULLIVAN & YOUNG PC, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

For TARGET CORPORATION, TD BANK, N.A., TARGET CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., TD BANK USA, N.A., Defendants: ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ, LEAD ATTORNEY, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA; BRIAN MELENDEZ, LEAD ATTORNEY, FAEGRE & BENSON LLP, MINNEAPOLIS, MN.

Page 539

MEMORANDUM

Harvey Bartle, III, J.

Plaintiff Michelle W. Vullings (" Vullings" ) has sued three consumer reporting services[1] as well as Target Corporate Services, Inc. (" Target" ) and TD Bank USA, N.A. (" TD Bank" ).[2] In her five-count complaint, Vullings alleges violations of: the Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA" ), 15 U.S.C. § § 1681s-2(a)-(b); Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2270.1 et seq.; and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1 et seq. She also pleads common-law defamation and civil conspiracy.

Before the court is the motion of defendants Target and TD Bank to dismiss all but one of the claims against them.

I.

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008); Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008). We must then determine whether the pleading at issue

Page 540

" contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Under this standard, " [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 578. Instead, the complaint must contain factual matter sufficient to state a claim that is facially plausible, meaning that " the plaintiff [has] plead[ed] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court may consider " allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and matters of public record." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing 5A Charles Allen Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (2d ed. 1990)). Beyond this, district courts are generally barred from considering " matters outside of the [c]omplaint when ruling on" a 12(b)(6) motion. Cerome v. Moshannon Valley Corr. Ctr./Cornell Cos., Inc., No. 09-2070, 2010 WL 4948940, at *3 (3d Cir. Dec. 7, 2010).

II.

The facts set forth in the complaint, taken in the light most favorable to Vullings as the plaintiff, are as follows.

In or around January 2015, while making purchases at one of defendant Target's stores, Vullings " instructed the store employees to connect her existing credit card with her Target Red Card to pay for said purchases." Instead, Target and TD Bank opened a new credit card in Vullings' name and charged a balance of $346.86 to that card.

When Vullings became aware of the new line of credit in March 2015, she contacted Target's customer service hotline and was able to pay off the balance of the card with the help of a customer service representative. Another Target representative stated that she would delete the account and credit inquiry from Vullings' credit report. According to Vullings, this step was never taken. Instead, Vullings discovered that the Target credit card ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.