2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-12-2014

Slawomir Obarski v. Client Services, Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 13-4197

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Slawomir Obarski v. Client Services, Inc" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 169.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 complaint. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
2

The facts being well-known to the parties, we set forth only those pertinent to this 

opinion. CSI, a debt collector, sent Obarski a collection letter in April, 2011, demanding 

payment on his delinquent Citibank 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 violation of the FCRA because he never alleged that CSI 

told a credit reporting agency about his debt.2 CSI’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was 

granted and Obarski’s complaint 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 order 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, that is, the “review or collection 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. § 1681s-2(B). While we recognize Obarski’s displeasure 

 

1 A “hard inquiry” is a credit 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.)