On March 3, a trio of credit reporting agencies (defendants) moved to dismiss a plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The defendants faced allegations from a New Jersey doctor in connection with a decision to remove medical debts below $500 less than a year past due from credit reports. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the court ruled previously in favor of the defendants but granted the plaintiffs the ability to amend their complaint.

In the defendants’ motion to dismiss, they argued the amended complaint failed to allege that the CRAs cause any injury to the plaintiffs or derived any financial benefit from the changes in medical debt reporting. In support of the decision to remove medical debts below $500 and less than a year past due from credit reports, the CRAs cited the CFPB’s assertion that medical debt was “less predictive of future payment problems than other debt,” and its inclusion in consumer reports “threatens the integrity and accuracy of the credit reporting system as a whole.” In response to the addition of a collection agency as a plaintiff, the defendants stated the collection agency also did not have a claim against the CRAs as it did not allege a reduction in revenue. The defendants also maintained the plaintiffs did not plead facts supporting every element of their tortious interference claims, prompting them to seek dismissal with prejudice of the amended complaint.