Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02340/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02340-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 

---

PS2-073 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2340

___________

HECTOR L. HUERTAS,

Appellant

v.

CITIGROUP, INC.; 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; 

CITIBANK, N.A.

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-13-cv-02050)

District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 16, 2016

Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 22, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2340 Document: 003112213159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
2

Hector L. Huertas appeals from the District Court’s orders entering summary 

judgment against him and denying reconsideration of that ruling. We will affirm.

I.

Huertas is a frequent pro se litigant who has brought several previous suits under 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) against various defendants, including Citigroup, 

Inc. See, e.g., Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28 (3d Cir. 2011); In re Huertas, 

360 F. App’x 357 (3d Cir. 2010). In this case, he filed suit under the FCRA against 

Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, “Citibank”) on the basis of events 

occurring after Citibank sent him two solicitations to apply for credit cards. Both 

solicitations invited Huertas to apply for credit and notified him that, if he did, “[w]e may 

gather information about you, including from . . . credit bureaus . . . to verify your 

identity and determine your eligibility for credit.” Huertas submitted applications for 

credit cards in response to these solicitations, but Citibank denied his applications.

Huertas then filed suit alleging that Citibank improperly accessed his credit report 

after he submitted his applications. (He also named as a defendant the entity that 

provided Citibank with his report, but he later dismissed his claims against that entity and 

they are not at issue here.) In particular, Huertas alleged that Citibank accessed his report 

for an impermissible purpose in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f) and that it did so under 

“false pretenses” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681q. He based these allegations on the 

additional allegation that Citibank’s solicitations were not “firm offers of credit” within 

the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(c)(1)(B). 

Case: 15-2340 Document: 003112213159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
3

Huertas ultimately filed a Second Amended Complaint after the parties engaged in 

discovery, and Citibank filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court, after notice to the 

parties, converted the motion into one for summary judgment and granted it. The District 

Court concluded that Citibank was authorized to access Huertas’s credit report pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) because Huertas had applied for credit. The District Court 

further concluded that whether Citibank’s solicitations were “firm offers of credit” was 

irrelevant to that issue. (The District Court also rejected two other claims that Huertas 

asserted, but we do not address them because he has not raised them on appeal.) Huertas 

filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. Huertas appeals.1

II.

We will affirm for the reasons explained by the District Court. Huertas’s claim 

implicates (and conflates) two situations in which the FCRA authorizes an offeror of 

credit to access a consumer’s credit report. In the first situation, the FCRA authorizes an 

offeror of credit to access certain information from a consumer’s credit report without 

any prior contact from the consumer in order to extend to the consumer a “firm offer of 

credit.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(c)(1)(B)(i); Gelman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

 

1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s entry 

of summary judgment is plenary. See Fuges v. S.W. Fin. Servs., Ltd., 707 F.3d 241, 246 

n.8 (3d Cir. 2012). We review the District Court’s denial of reconsideration for abuse of 

discretion but review it de novo to the extent that it turns on an issue of law. See Burtch 

v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220 (3d Cir. 2011). The District Court denied 

Huertas’s motion for sanctions as part of its motion denying reconsideration, but Huertas 

has not challenged the denial of sanctions on appeal.

Case: 15-2340 Document: 003112213159 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
4

583 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir. 2009). In the second situation, the FCRA authorizes an 

offeror of credit to access a consumer’s credit report “when the consumer applies for 

credit[.]” Gelman, 583 F.3d at 191 (quotation marks omitted). The FCRA does so by 

permitting access to a credit report “in connection with a credit transaction involving the 

consumer . . . and involving the extension of credit to . . . the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 

1681b(a)(3)(A). 

As the District Court explained, Huertas’s claim is governed by this second 

provision, and not the “firm offer” provisions of § 1681b(c)(1)(B), because Huertas does 

not allege that Citibank accessed his credit report before sending its solicitations. 

Instead, he alleges that Citibank accessed his credit report only after he responded to the 

solicitations by applying for credit. Thus, Citibank was authorized by § 1681b(a)(3)(A) 

to access Huertas’s credit report when it did because it did so after he applied for credit. 

Huertas argues that this provision does not apply because he did not “initiate” 

contact with Citibank but applied for credit only after Citibank sent him its solicitations.

Section § 1681b(a)(3)(A), however, is not limited to situations in which a consumer 

“initiates” contact with an offeror of credit and does not address the initiation of contact 

at all. Huertas appears to be relying on our observation that, in enacting the FCRA, 

“Congress realized that disclosures of consumer credit reports are often the direct result 

of inquiries initiated by consumers themselves” and “allowed for disclosure in many such 

situations because they do not create significant privacy concerns.” Gelman, 583 F.3d at 

191 (quotation marks omitted). 

Case: 15-2340 Document: 003112213159 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/22/2016
5

In so observing, however, we did not purport to limit § 1681b(a)(3)(A) to 

situations in which a consumer “initiates” the first contact with an offeror of credit. 

Instead, we noted merely that § 1681b(a)(3)(A) authorizes access to a consumer’s credit 

report “when the consumer applies for credit[.]” Id. The plain text of § 1681b(a)(3)(A) 

authorizes the access of credit reports when a consumer applies for credit, and Citibank 

was authorized to access Huertas’s credit report (as it advised him it could do) because he 

applied for credit. Accepting Huertas’s argument would mean that a credit card issuer 

somehow forfeits the right to inquire into an applicant’s creditworthiness by sending a 

solicitation that does not qualify as a “firm offer” even if the consumer then applies for 

credit. Huertas cites no authority in support of this interpretation of the FCRA, and we 

are aware of none. We have reviewed Huertas’s remaining arguments and conclude that 

they do not require discussion for the reasons adequately explained by the District Court.

III.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgments of the District Court. Huertas’s 

motion and amended motion for “judicial notice” are denied, and his unopposed motion 

to supplement the record is granted.2

 

2

In his motions for “judicial notice,” Huertas essentially requests that we expand the 

record on appeal to include the transcript of a settlement conference and the stipulation of 

dismissal in his prior FCRA suit against Citibank. Huertas does not rely on these 

documents in his briefs, however, and they are of no conceivable relevance to any issue 

on appeal. The same is true of the document that is the subject of his motion to 

supplement the record, which is an exhibit that he filed with the District Court but that

the District Court did not electronically docket. Citibank does not oppose that motion, 

however, and we see no reason not to grant it.

Case: 15-2340 Document: 003112213159 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/22/2016