2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

2-12-2014 

# S l a womir Ob a rsk

i v . C lie n t S e r v ices, I nc
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t 13-4197

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" S l a w omir Ob a r sk i v

. C l ie n t S e r v ic e s, I nc " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 169. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/169

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 4197

___________ SLAWOMIR OBARSKI ,

Appellant

v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC.

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 13

- cv - 02271 ) District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 11, 2014 Before: SMITH, GARTH and ROTH , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : February 12, 2014 )

___________ OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM Slawomir Obarski, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s October 7, 2013, order granting Client Services, Inc.’s (“CSI”) motion to dismiss the second amended comp laint. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

### 2

The facts being well

- known to the parties, we set forth only those pert inent to this opinion. CSI, a debt collector, sent Obarski a collection letter in April, 2011, demanding payment on his de linquent C itibank credit card. At the same time, CSI made a hard inquiry on Obaski’s credit report. 1 

### Obarksi alleged that CSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by making that hard inquiry , which appeared on his credit report from April, 2011, through April, 2013

. The District Court disagreed , finding that CSI had a permissible purpose for running the hard inquiry. (Dkt. No. 6.) It also found that Obarski failed to plead a vio lation of the FCRA because he never alleged that CSI told a credit reporti ng agency about his debt. 2 

### CSI’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was granted and Obarski’s complai nt was dismissed with prejudice

. (Dkt. No. 17.) We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. We exercise plenary review over a district court’s ord er dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim. Gelman v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 583 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 2009)

. We agree with the District Court that CSI ran the hard inquiry with a permissible purpose, tha t is, the “review or collect ion of an account ” of the consumer. 15 U.S.C. §1681b(a)(3)(A). We also agree that nowhere did Obarski allege that CSI provided a credit reporting agency “ any item of information in dispute . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 1681i (a)(2)(A); see also 15 U.S.C. § 168 1s

- 2(B ). While we recognize Obarski’s displeasure

1 

### A “hard inquiry” is a credi t report check that may lower an individual’s credit score.

2 

### Obarski was twice granted leave to amend his complaint.

### 3

with the fact of the hard inquiry appearing on his credit report, we perceive no error in the District Court’s conclusion that he failed to allege any violation of the FCRA. 3

3 

### Obarski even states in his brief that he “did not explicitly allege in his complaint that [CSI] reported information about alleged debt, because he had no evidence of that.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 5.)