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.

Sean Stewart Macpherson v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank

December 23, 2011

SEAN STEWART MACPHERSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,*FN1 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J.), dismissing a consumer's state common law tort claims against an entity alleged to have knowingly furnished false information to a consumer credit reporting agency.

Per curiam.

10-3722-cv

Macpherson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Argued: September 22, 2011

Before: POOLER, B.D. PARKER, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

We hold that the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F), preempts the consumer's state law claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

32 AFFIRMED.

10 Proceeding pro se, Sean Stewart Macpherson appeals from a judgment of the United 11 States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J.), dismissing his state common 12 law tort claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Because we agree that the Fair Credit 13 Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F), preempts Macpherson's state law claims 14 against Chase, we affirm the district court's judgment.

15 Macpherson alleges that Chase willfully and maliciously provided false information 16 about his finances to Equifax, a consumer credit reporting agency. Based on these reports, 17 Equifax reduced his credit score, to his detriment. Macpherson sued Chase in state court in 18 Connecticut for this alleged conduct, asserting state common law claims against Chase for 19 defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

20 Chase removed the suit to federal court and moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Macpherson's claims are preempted by FCRA. In a 22 careful and thorough decision, the district court agreed and granted Chase's motion. 23 No. 3:09CV1774, 2010 WL 3081278 (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2010). Macpherson timely appealed.

24 The sole issue on appeal is whether FCRA preempts Macpherson's state law claims. We 25 review de novo a district court's application of preemption principles. Drake v. Lab. Corp. of 26 Am. Holdings, 458 F.3d 48, 56 (2d Cir. 2006). Chase contends, and the district court held, that 27 Macpherson's claims are preempted by § 1681t(b)(1)(F) of FCRA. This section, a general 2 1 preemption provision enacted in 1996--over twenty years after FCRA first took 2 effect--provides, in relevant part:

3 No requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State--

5 (1) with respect to any subject matter regulated under-- 7 (F) section 1681s-2 of this title, relating to the responsibilities of persons 8 who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies . ..

10 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F). Macpherson acknowledges that his allegations of false reporting 11 concern conduct regulated by § 1681s-2. Read literally, therefore, § ...


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.