UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_____ _______________________________ ) THOMAS J. ALSTON , ) ) Plaintiff , )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 21

- 2322 ( RBW ) ) LEXISNEXIS RISK S O LUTIONS INC., ) and SAGESTREAM, LLC, ) ) Defendant s
. )

)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
T he pl aintiff , Thomas Alston , proceeding pro se , b rings this civil action pursu ant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( “ th e Act ” ) , 15 U.S .C. § 1681

– 16 8 1x , against the defendant s , LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. ( “ LexisNexis ” ) and SageStream, LLC ( “ Sage Stream ” )

. See First
Ame [ n ] ded Complaint and Jury Demand ( “ Am. Com pl. ” ) ¶ 1 , ECF No. 10

. Currently pending
before the Court are (1) L exisNexis ’ s m otio n to dismiss C ount I I of the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the a lternative, for a more defin ite

statement of Count II pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (e) , s e e Lexi sNexis Risk
S o lution s Inc. ’ s Partial Motion to Di smiss P laintiff ’ s First Amended Complaint or, Alternatively,
Motion for a More Definite Statement ( “ LexisNexis ’ s Mot

. ” ) , ECF N o. 11 ; and ( 2) S ageStream ’ s

mo tion t o d i sm i ss b oth counts of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 4(m) and 12(b)( 5 ) , see Defendant Sa geStream, LLC ’ s Motion to Dis miss W ithout Prejudice ( “ Sage Stream ’ s Mot. ” ) , ECF No. 14

. Upon careful consideration of the parties’2

submissions, 1 the Court c oncludes for th e following reas ons tha t i t must den y L exisNexi s ’ s

m otion and grant Sage Stream ’ s m otion

. I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Th e plaintiff , a resident of the District of Col u mbi a, see A m. Compl. ¶ 2, alleges that the
de fenda nts are entities that “ col lect and furnish personal and/or credit inform ation, including public records and ‘ hard ’ credit inquiries, to [consumer 2 ] report ing agencies [ ] and/or other third parties [ ,] ” id. ¶ 3 . According to t he plaintiff, between M a y 12, 2021 , to July 19, 2021, se e id. ¶¶ 5

– 7, t he defendants reported “ several unauthorized inquiries on [the p]laintiff ’ s credit
reports [,] ” id. ¶ 4, from three con sumer reporting agencies, ” id. ¶ 5

– 7 , includin g five inquiries
from third partie s according to a consu mer report from Equifax, 3 see id. ¶ 5; three inquiri es from

t hird p arties according to a consume r report from Exper ian, 4 see id. ¶ 6; and one inquiry f r o m a

1 In addi tion to the filings already ident ified, the Court con sider ed the f ollow ing submiss ion s in render i ng it s de cision : ( 1 ) LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. ’ s Memorandum in Support of Partial Motion to Dismiss [the] Pl aintiff ’ s Firs t Amended Com plaint o r, Alternat ively, Motion for a More Definit e Stateme nt ( “ LexisN exis ’ s Mem. ” ), ECF No. 11

- 1; (2) the Plain tiff ’ s Oppos ition to [the] Defe ndant ’ s Motion to Dism iss or, Alternatively , Motion for a More Defini te Statement ( “ P l

. ’ s Opp ’ n ” ), ECF No . 12; ( 3 ) Lexis Nexis Risk S olu t i on s Inc. ’ s Reply in Support o f Its Par tial Motion to Di smis s [the ] Pl a in tiff ’ s First Amended C omplai nt or, Alter native ly, M ot ion for a More Definit e Statement ( “ LexisNexis ’ s Reply ” ) , ECF No. 13; ( 4 ) the D efendant SageS tream , LLC ’ s Statemen t of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Witho ut Prejudice ( “ Sa ge Stream ’ s Mem. ” ), ECF No. 14

- 1 ; and (5) the Notic e o f Co nceded Motion

— [the] Defendant Sage Stream, L LC ’ s Moti o n to Dismiss without Prej udice ( “ SageS t ream ’ s Notice ” ), ECF No. 16

.
2 Although the plaintiff refers to these entities as “ credit reporting agencies[,] ” Am. Compl. ¶ 13, the Act actually ref ers to them as “ consumer r ep orting agencies[,] ” 15 U.S.C. § 16 81s

- 2 . Acco rdingly, the Cour t will also refer to them as “ consum er re porti ng agencies[.] ”

3 The plaintiff alleges th at, on his “ report fr om Equifax, [the d]efendants [ ] report [ed] five inq uiries[

— ]including a [Fir st Nationa l B ank of O m aha ( “ FNB O maha ” )] inquiry on July 19 , 2021 [;] [Branc h Banking & Trus t Co. ( “ BB&T ” ) ] in quir ie s on June 2 , 8 , and 9 , 2021 [ ; ] and a Universa l Credit Servic es inquiry on May 12, 202 1 [

— ]that were not authorized by [ hi m ]. ” Id. ¶ 5.

4 The plaintiff alleges that, on his “ r ep ort from Experian , [the d]efenda nts [ ] report [e d] three inqu iries[

— ]including a [Fi r st Nationa l Ba nk of O m aha ( “ F NB O maha ” )] inquiry on July 19, 2021 [;] a PNC [Ban k] inq uiry on July 1, 2021 [;] and a Universa l Credit Services i nqu iry on May 12, 2 021 [

— ]that were not aut horized by [ him]. ” Id. ¶ 6.3

third party according to a consumer report f rom Trans Union , 5 see id. ¶ 7

. B eca use the
defendants allegedly “ furnish[ed] [ ] false credit inquiries ” by these t hird p a rties to the consumer reporting agencies, his credit reports reflected a “ false record of credit searching attributed to [the p]laint iff [,] ” t hereby “ caus[ing] user s of [the p] laintiff ’ s credit reports to believe [that he] was a higher credit risk than he was in fact. ” Id. ¶ 9.

“ B y letters dat e d June 1, 202 1 [;] Ju ne 18, 2 0 21[ ; ] and July 28, 2021 [; the p] laintiff dispute d the unauthoriz ed cr edit inquiries [,] ” i d

. ¶ 12 , and, ther e after, “ the [consumer] reporting agencies [

— ] Equifax, Experian[,] and Trans Uni o n [

— ] forwarded notice of [the p]laintiff ’ s disputes to the [d]efendants [,] ” id. ¶ 13. According to the plaintiff, the “ [d]efendants d id not re ad [his] dispute letter ” or “ inves tigate the issues raised in [the] [ ] letter[,] ” id. ¶ 30 (emphasis in original ) , but rather “ r e sponded to [the p]laintif f ’ s dispute [s] by false[ly] represe nting to the [ agencies ] that the un authorized credit inqu iries we r e auth orized by [ the p]lai nt iff [,] ” i d

. ¶ 14.
Accor ding to the plaintiff, a lthough “ [a ] reasonable investigation of [th e p]la in tiff ’ s dis pute would have entailed the [d]efendants contac ting the entities [ who ] made the i nquir [ ies ,] [ ] the [d]ef en dants [ alleged ly ] v erified the inquiries as autho rized w ithout co n tacting t h e ent itie s who made the inquirie s
. ” Id. ¶ 15. And , the plaintiff represents that b ecause the defendants did not

“ instruct the [consumer] reporting agencies to remove the unauthorized inquiries on [ t he

p ]laintiff ’ s credit report, [he] was denied credit [.] ” I d. ¶ 16.
B. Procedur al H istory
On Novembe r 1 , 2021, the plaintiff fil ed hi s Amend ed Complaint in this case, see Am. Compl

. , asserting two counts of violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681, see id. ¶¶ 1 7

– 44. On November
15 , 2021, LexisNexis filed its partial motion to dismiss the plaintiff ’ s f irst amended complaint or,

5 The plain tiff alleges that , on h is “report from T rans Union, [the d]efendants r eported a U cs / 2 Patc h O f Land inquir y on May 12 , 2021 , that was not authorize d by [ h im]. ” Id. ¶ 7.4

alternatively, for a more definite statement. See LexisNexis ’ s Mot

. at 1. On November 30,
20 21, the plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion. S ee Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n to LexisNexis at 1 . On December 6, 2021, the plaintiff filed his reply in s u pport of his motion. See Pl. ’ s Reply at 1. Finally, o n January 24, 2022, SageStream filed i ts mo tion to dismiss w ithout prejudice

. See Sage Stream ’ s Mot . at 1.
II. S TANDAR D O F REVIEW
A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
P u rsuant to Federal Rule of Civil P rocedu re 12(b)(6) , a cou r t must dis miss a complaint
that “ fail[s] to state a c laim upon which r elief can be granted. ” Fed. R. Civ

. P. 12 ( b )(6). In

e valuating a m otio n to dismiss, the Court mu st “ treat the complaint ’ s fac t ual allegat ions as true
and mu st gran t [t he] plaintiff th e be nef it of all inferences that can be d e riv ed from t he f a cts alleged. ” Spa rrow v. United Air Lines , I nc. , 21 6 F .3d 1111, 11 13 (D.C. Cir

. 2000) ( citation and
inter nal quotation marks omitte d); see also Ashcroft v. Iq b al , 55 6 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A c ourt

n eed not accept as true, however “ a legal c onclu sion couc hed as a factual a llegation , ” nor an infere nc e uns up por ted by the f acts set forth in t he complaint. Trude au v . Fed. Tra de Comm ’ n , 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Although “ detailed factua l all eg ations ” are not necessary to
withst and a R ule 1 2(b) ( 6) m otion, s ee Bell At l. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U. S

. 544, 55 5 (2007), “ a complaint must con tain suffi cient fact ual matter, [if] accepted as true , to state a claim t o relie f that is plausible on its f

ace. ” Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (interna l q uota tio n mar ks o m itte d).
Alt ho ugh a plai ntiff may survive a Rule 12 ( b) (6) m otion even if “ recove ry is very r emote and unlikely, ” the facts alleged in the compl a int “ must be enough t o raise a right to relief above th e
spe cu lative level. ” Twombly , 550 U.S. a t 555

– 5 6.5

B. Motion for a More Definite St atement Pursuan t to Fe deral Rule of Civ il Procedure 12(e)
Federal Rul e of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides de fendants wit h a remedy when complaints fail to satisfy the mi nimum p leading standard set forth i n R u le 8(a)

. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e)

. “Thus, ‘when a defendant is unclear about th e mean ing of a particular allegation in the

com plaint, th e proper course of actio n is not t o move to dismiss but to move for a more definite
statement.’ ” Hilska v. Jones , 2 17 F .R. D. 16, 21 (D.D.C. 2003) ( cita tion omitt ed); see also Swier kiewicz v. Sorema N.A. , 534 U.S. 506, 514, (2002) (recognizing th at “[i] f a p leading fails to specify the al l ega tion in a m anner that provides sufficie nt n otic e, a defendant can move
for a more d efin ite statement under Rule 12(e) ”). However, “[a] complaint satisfies th[e]
crit er ion [of Rules 8(a ) and 12(e) ] if it is no t ‘so vague or ambi guous that a party canno t

reasona bly be expected to frame a responsi ve p leading [;] ’ ” in other words , “a plai ntiff ne ed not allege all the facts necessary to prove its claim so long as it provides enough factual information
to make clear the substance of th at claim.” Caribbean Br o ad. Sys. , Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless
PLC , 148 F.3 d 1080, 1086 (D. C. Cir. 1998) (citat ion omit ted) (quoting Rule 12(e) ).
C. Pro Se Plaint iff
In applying the abov e legal fra mew ork, the Court is mindful of the fact tha t the plai n tiff
is proceeding in this matte r pro se
. This appreciation is requi red because the pleadings of pro se
par t ies are “ to be liberally construed, and a pro s e compla int, however inartfully pleaded, must be
held to less stringe nt standards than fo rmal plead ings draf ted by lawyers. ” Ericks o n v. Pardus , 551 U .S. 89, 94 (2007) (int er nal q uotation marks and citations omi tted ). Furtherm ore, “ all filings by [a pro se plaintiff] should be read together in assessi ng whether [ his C]omplaint []
should b e dismissed [,] ” Khatri v. B d . of T rustees of Un i v. of D.C. , No. 19

- cv
- 2644 (RBW) , 20216

WL 2403087 , at *6 (D.D.C. J une 11, 20 21) (Walton, J.) , although a “ pro se co mplaint, like a ny

ot her, must present a claim upon which relief c an be grant ed by the [C]ourt[ , ] ” Crisafi v.
Holla nd , 6 55 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D

. C. Cir. 1981) . In addition, a pro se litigant “ must comp l y with

t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court ’ s local rules[.] ” He drick v. Fed. Bureau of
Inve stiga tion , 216 F. Supp. 3d 84, 93 (D.D. C. 20 1 6) ( citations omitted); se e McNeil v. United
States , 508 U.S. 1 0 6, 113 (1993) ( “ [W]e have never su gges te d that procedural rules in or dinary
civil litig ation should be interpreted so as to excuse m istakes by those who proceed without
counsel. ” ).
III. ANALYSIS
T h e Court will first a ddr ess LexisNexi s ’ s moti o n , before turning to SageStream ’ s motion ,

an d fo r the following reaso ns, t he Court will deny Lexis N exis ’ s motion an d grant Sage Stream ’s
motion.
A. LexisNexis ’ s Motion
LexisNex is moves to dismiss Count II or, in the alternative , for a more definite statemen t regarding the all eg ations in Count II. See LexisNexis ’ s Mot. at 1. The Court will first address
LexisNexis ’ s motion to dismiss, before turning to its motion for a more def init e statement

. 1. LexisNexis ’ s Partial Mo tion to Dismiss
L exisNex i s move s to dismi s s Count II of the Amended Complaint , see id. at 1, whi ch allege s that the “ [d]efendants violated [ 15 U.S.C. §] 1681s

- 2(b)(1)(A) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigati on of [the p ] laintiff ’ s dis pute [, which] was forwarded to [the de fendants] by the [con sum er] reporting agencies[,] ” Am. Compl. ¶ 29

. Section 1681s

- 2 sets for th the

“ [r] esponsibilities of furni she rs of information to consumer reporting agencies[.] ” 15 U.S .C. § 1681 s
- 2

. Specifically, u nder § 1681s

- 2(b), “ [a]fter rec eiving notice pursu a nt t o [15 U.S.C. §7

1681i(a)(2)] of a dispute with regard to the co mp le teness or accuracy of any information

pro vided by a [furnisher] to a consumer reporting agency , the [fur nisher] ” is required to: (A) conduct an investigation with re spect ed to the disput e d infor mation; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consu mer reporting agency pursuant to [§ 1681i(a)(2)]; (C) r eport the results of the investigation to th e consumer repo rting agency; (D) if the investigation finds that the information i s incomplete or inaccu rate, report those results to al l other consumer reporting ag encies to which the [furnisher] furnished the information and that co mpile and mai ntain files on consumers on a nationwide ba sis; and (E) if an item of informat i on disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any r einvestig ation

. . . , for purposes of reporting to a consumer rep orting agency only, as appropriate , based on the results on th e reinvestigati o n promptly

— (i) modi fy that item of information; (i i) dele te that item of information; or (iii ) pe rmanently bloc k the reporting of that i tem of information.
15 U.S. C. § 1681s

- 2(b)(1). When a furnisher fails to comply with § 1681 s
- 2, the Act “pr o vides a private right o f action for violations . . . if the furnisher of information negligent ly or willfull y fail ed to meet the requirements of that section. ” Cad mus v. Ch eckr, Inc. , No . 19

- cv
- 3459 (RC) , 2021 WL 5411327, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2021) (i n terna l quotat ion marks and alteration s omitted). Here, LexisNexis argues that the pla intiff ha s failed to a l le ge e ither that (1) Lexis Nexis is

a “ furn isher ” wit hin the meaning of § 1681 s
- 2 ( b) , see LexisNexis ’ s M em . at 4, o r (2) LexisNexis furnished any “ i nfo rmation ” t o consumer reporting age ncies within the meaning of § 1681 s 2(b) ,

s ee id. a t 6

. In respon se, the plaintiff ar gues that (1) L e xisNexis has sufficien tly “ ac ted as a fu r nisher [ ,] ” Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n at 2 (emphasis in original) ; an d ( 2) the “ hard credi t inquiries ” f urnishe d by LexisNexis t o the consumer reporting agencies are “ information ” wit hin the meaning of § 1681s

- 2(b) , id. at 4. For th e following reasons , t he Court con clud es that it must den y LexisNexis ’ s motion

.8

a. Whether L e xisNexis Is a “ F urnish e r ” of Information Under § 1681 s - 2 ( b) First, Lex isNex is argu es that the plaintiff has failed to allege that it is a “ furnisher of
information ” under § 1681s

- 2( b) because the “ [p] laintiff all e ges [that LexisNexis] is both a
furnisher an d a [consumer repor t i ng ag ency, b]ut [,] ” according to f ed eral regulations , “ an entit y cannot be both a furnisher and a[ consumer reporting agency .] ” LexisNexis ’ s Mem. at 5

. In

resp onse, the plaintiff argues tha t an entit y may be both a furn isher and a c ons umer reporting

age n cy, s o long as it ac ted only a s a furnisher regarding the information a t issue

. See Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n

at 2.

“ While the [Act itself ] doe s not exp licitly define [the term] ‘ furn ishe rs [,] ’ ” Himmelstein
v. Comcast of th e Dist., L. L.C. , 931 F. Supp. 2d 4 8, 52 (D. D .C. 2013), 16 C.F.R. § 660.2 defines

a “ furnisher ” as “ an entity that furnishes information relating to consumers to one or more

consumer reporting agencies for inclusion i n a consumer report. ” 16 C.F.R. § 66 0.2 (c ) ; see 12 C.F.R. § 1022.4 1(c ) (provi ding t he s ame def inition). ; see also Chia ng v. Veriz on New Eng

. , Inc. , 595 F.3d 26 , 35 n. 7 (1st C ir. 2010) (noting that a fur nisher may be “ an y person with re leva nt data
about a consu m e r ’ s financ ial ac ti vity [,] ” and th e “ most common . . . furnis hers of informat i on a re credit car d issue r s, au to dealers, department and gro cery st ores, lend ers, u ti lit ies , i nsurers, coll ect ion agencies, and governme n t a genci es ” )

. However, an entity “ is not a furnisher when [,] ”
16 C.F.R. § 660 .2 (c) , inter alia , it “ [i]s acting as a ‘ con sumer reporting agency [,] ’ as defined in [§] 603(f) of the [Act , ] ” id. § 1022.41(c)( 2). Section 603( f) states that a “ consumer reporting

agency ” is any person which, f

or monetary fe es, dues , or on a coope rat ive no nprofit basis, regularly engages in w h ole or in part in the p ractice of asse mbling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to t hird parties, and which uses any mean s o r fac i lity of interstate comme rce for the p u rpo se of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.9

15 U.S.C. § 1681 a (f). Therefore, when read together , the se provisions provide that an entity

“ that furnishes information relating to c onsumers to one or more consumer reporting agencies for
i nclusion in a con sumer report [,] ” 16 C.F.R. § 660.2 , is not a cting as a furnisher , see id. § 660.2 (c)(3 ), when it i s “ preparing or furnishing consumer reports [,] ” 15 U.S.C. § 168 1a(f). In

sum , a single entity cannot be bot h the fur nisher of i nformation to a c onsumer repor ting agen cy and the consumer reporting agency receiving that same information. However , c ontrary to
LexisNexis ’ s argument, see LexisNexis ’ s M em. at 5 ( “ [A]n entity cann ot be both a furn isher and a [consume r reporti n g agency]. ” ) , the reg ulations do n o t s tate that a n entity may not at different
times and in regards to different information sometimes act as a c onsumer reporting agency and
sometimes act as a furnisher of inf ormation to other agencies. Consequently , th ere is nothing
inherentl y contra dict o ry a bout the plaintiff ’ s allegations that Lexis Nexis is a “ furnisher[] when [ it is] furnishing information to [consumer reporting agenc ies] and [is a consu mer reporting

agen c y] when furnishi ng credit reports[,] ” Am. Com pl. ¶ 3. Accordingly , t he key quest i on here is whether the plaintiff has alleged that LexisNexis is acting as a f

urnisher

— rather than a consumer reporting agency

— w ith respect to th e parti cular
information that was allegedly provid ed to the three consumer reporting agencies name d in the plai n tif f ’ s Amended Complaint. As the plaintiff correctly argues, see Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n ¶¶ 6

– 7 , he has adequately alleged that Lex is Nexis was only acting as a furnisher of the informa t ion submitted to Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union.
In his Amended Complaint, t he plaintiff alleges that he “ disputed [ ] in accurate credit inquiries appeari ng on his [Equifax, Experian, and Trans U nion] credit reports as a result of the10

[d]efendants ’ f

urnishing of that information to ” Eq uifax, Ex perian, and Trans Union , 6 Am. Compl. ¶ 2 8 ; see id. ¶¶ 5

– 7 (d iscussing the pu rported unauthorized inquiries on ea ch credit report). “ [T]reating the [Amended C]omplaint ’ s factual al legations as tr ue[,] ” as the Cou rt must ,

see Sparrow , 216 F.3d at 1113 , t hese allegatio ns adequately allege tha t L exisNexis was the

“ furnisher ” of the in formation , see 12 C. F.R. § 1022.41(c), and th at Equifax, Experian, and Trans
Union were the “ consumer reporting agencies ” th at received the information from LexisNexis as part of “ p reparing or furnishing [the plain ti f f ’ s] consumer reports[,] ” 15 U.S.C. § 1681 a (f)

. Cf. Armstrong v. Nav ient Solutions, LLC , 292 F. Supp. 3d 464, 468 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s

- 2) ( “ T he [Act] impo ses d uties on [a g encies] and on entiti e s that f urnish in formation
about b orrower s to [agencies]

. . . Here, [the defendant] is a ‘ furni sher ’ within the meaning of t he [Act] because it alleged ly provided information about [the p]laintif fs ’ loan balances and

‘ cre ditworthines s ’ to [a gencies ], whi c h then u sed that information to ge nerate c r edit reports. ” )

. Accordingly, the Court concludes th at the plaintiff has adequately alleged that LexisNexis was

6 In his opposition, t he plaintiff pro vides additional alleg ations supporting his cl aim that Lexi sNex is wa s acting as a “furnisher ” regarding the inform ation that he alleg edl y disputed, see Pl. ’s Opp ’n at 2

– 3 , which the Court may conside r d ue to the plaintiff ’s pro se status, see Khatri , 2021 WL 2403087, at *6 ( “ [T ]he plaintiff ’ s pro se status leads the Court t o conclude that all filings by the plaintiff should be read t og ether in assessing whether his Complaint should be dismissed. ” ) (inte rnal quot ation mark s omitted )

. Sp ecifically, the p laintiff states that [ t] h e [Am ended C] omplaint does n ot allege that Lex is[Nexis] was acting as [a] credi t r eporting agency when it furnished information about hard credi t inquiries to [] Equifax , Experian [ ,] a nd Trans Union. Rather, as L exis[ Nexis] ackno wledges, [the p]laintiff a llege d that [the d]efendant acted as a ‘ furnis her ’ when it fu rnished i nformation a bout the hard credit inquiries to Equifax, Exp erian[, ] and Tr an s Union. . . . Clearly, with respect to the hard inquiries, [the p]l aintiff is only a lleging that [] Lexis[Ne xi s] ac ted as a furnisher. [T he p]laintiff does not allege th at Lexis[Nexis] act ed as both a ‘ furnisher and ‘ credit reporting age ncy ’ with respe ct to the hard credit inqu iries. T o be s ure, [ the Amended C]omplaint does allege [that] Lexis [Nexis] did act as a credi t rep orting agency also at o ne point in time . However, the [Amended C] omplaint cl early alleges that Lexis[Nexis] acted as a cre dit re porting age ncy only with re sp ect to the c redit rep orts that Lexis[Nex is] mainta ins on [the p]la i ntiff.

. . . While Lexis[N exis] is acting as a credit reporting a gency with respect to its own credit report s, Lexi s is not acting as a credit reporting a gency with respec t to credit repo rt s maintained by Equif ax, Experian[,] and Trans Uni on.
Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n at ¶¶ 6

– 9 (emphases in ori g inal) ( citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4

– 7, 10, 1 1, 19 )

. These allegations further support the Court ’s conclusion that the plaintiff has adequately alleged t hat LexisNexis was the “furn isher ” of the information, see 16 C .F.R. § 660.2 , provided to Equifax, Experian, and Tran s Union

.11

acting as a furnisher , rather than a c onsumer reporting agenc y , regarding the informat ion that he disputed. Cf. id. ( concluding tha t Navie nt S ol utions, LLC was “ a ‘ furnisher ’ within the meaning of the [A ct] because it allegedly provided information about [the p]laintiffs ’ loan balances and

‘ creditworthine ss ’ to [ consumer reporting agencies ], which the n use d tha t inf ormation to
generat e credit r e po rts ” ).
b. Whether th e “ Hard Credit In quiries Furnished by Lexis Nexis Constitute
‘ Information ’ ” Under § 1681 s - 2 ( b) Second, L exisNexis argues that the plai ntiff has n ot adeq uately al leged that LexisNexis is

a “ furnisher ” because the inquiries th at the plai n tiff alle ges LexisNexis furnished to the consumer reporting agencies do not quali fy as “ information relating to consumers ” withi n the meaning of 16 C.F.R. § 660.2

. See LexisNexis ’ s Mem. at 6 ; 16 C.F.R. § 660.2 (defining a

“ furnisher ” as “ an entity that f u rnishes informati on relating to consumers to one or more

consumer reporting agencies for inclusion in a consumer report ” (emphasis added) )

. In response, the plainti ff argues that “ a credit inquiry i s plainly information that relate s to [ him ] ” within the

m eaning of § 660.2 . Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n at 4. In support of its argument, LexisNexis relies on language from the stat ement in Alston [ 7 ]
v. Freedom Plus/Cross River , 17

- cv
- 3 3 (TDC) , 2018 WL 770384 (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2018) , that

“ [a] n inquiry ‘ [could not ] c ons titute information relat ing to [ Ms. ] Alston. ’ ” Lexi sNexis ’ s Mem.
at 6 (qu oting A lston , 2018 WL 770384 , at *7 )

. However, that case is inapplicable to th is case
. I n that case , the plaintiff sue d several banks and financial en tities that she alleged had requeste d
her credit rep ort from consumer report ing agencies , alleg in g , inter alia , tha t they had violated
their dut ies as furnishers under § 1681s

- 2(b)

. See Alston , 2018 W L 770384, at *1. The court

7 LexisNexis represen ts that the pla intiff in Alston v. Freedom Plus /Cross River , Yvonne Alston, is a re lative of the plaintiff in this case

. S ee LexisNexis ’ s Mem. at 5 n.4. Ho wever, even if this is corre ct, t he relationship alone between Ms. Alston and the plaintiff is irr e levant to this c a se.12

concluded that Ms. Alston had not adequately alleged that the d e fend ant banks a nd financial
entities we re furnishers because t hey “ c[ ould ]not pla usibl y be deemed to hold relevant
information about [ Ms. ] Alston, let alone to hav e furnish ed it to a [ consumer reporting agency ], ”
when “ [t]he only communication that [ Ms

. ] Alst on allege[d ] any [ d]efendant to hav e made to a [ n agency] was an inquiry[, ] ” i.e. , a reques t for her credit report. Id. at *7

. Here, however, the plaintiff ha s sued the defendants, whom he alleges were responsible
for “ collect[ing] ” the inquiries ma d e by third partie s “ and furnish[ing] ” tho se inq uiries to the consumer reporting agencies, see A m . Compl. ¶ 3, resul ting in the inquiries from the agencies appearing on the plaintiff ’ s credit reports , see id. ¶¶ 5

– 8. Unlike the plaintiff in Alston , the

p l a intiff here has not sued the entities that m ade the in quiries in the first pla ce , which in this case was allegedly “ BB&T [,] ” id. ¶ 5; “ F NB O m aha [,] ” id. ¶ 6; “ Unive rsal Credit Services [ , ] ” id. ¶ 5 ;

“ PNC [ Bank , ] ” id

. ¶ 6; and “ Ucs/2 Patch of L and [,] ” id. ¶ 7

. Compare id. ¶¶ 3

– 8, w ith Alston , 2018 WL 770384, at *1

. Con sequently, Alston ’ s conc lusion that inquiries by banks and
financial institutions to consumer report ing agencies for a consumer ’ s credit report do no t

“ consti t ute ‘ information relating to ’ Al s ton[,] ” Alston , 2018 WL 770384, at *7, is inapplic able
here.
S e lectively quoting from Alston , L e xis Nexis argues that “[a]n inquiry ‘cannot constitute
info rmation relating to [the plaintiff ]. ” L exis N exis ’s Mem

. at 6 (quoting A lston , 2018 WL 770384, at *7 )

. However, when read in context , Alston does not amount to such a broad holding and, as discuss ed above , its act ual holding is not applicable to this case

. See Alston , 2018 WL 770384, at *7

. Ac co rdingly, the Court concludes that t he plaintiff has ade qu a tely alleged tha t
LexisNexis is a fu rnisher under § 168 1s

- 2(b) , and L exisNexis ’ s partial motion to dismiss must b e denied.13

2. L ex isNexis ’ s Motion in th e Alter native for a Mo re Def in ite Statement
The Court n ow t u rns to LexisNe xis ’ s motion in the alter native f o r a more def

init e

stateme nt . Lexis Nexis argues that the complaint filed by the plaintiff in Alston v. Equ ifa x Information Service s , Civil Ac tion No . 21

- 23 23, which was filed on the same da y as he filed the Complaint in this case , contrad icts the allegati o ns in th e Complaint in this case

. See
L exis Nexis ’ s Mem. at 7

– 8 ; see also id. at 8 ( comparing the allegations in the two com plaints ). In

response, the plaintiff argues th at Lexis Nexis “ does not cite a single source of authority to support its argument th a t a complaint ” can be defici ent under F ederal Rul e of Civi l Procedure 12(e) “ based on a different complaint [,] ” and that Rul e 8 “ explicitly permits ” contrad ictory allegati ons
. Pl

. ’ s Opp ’ n ¶ 19

. For the following reasons, the Court will also deny LexisNe x is ’ s motion for a more definite st atement.
Ru le 12(e) permits a party to “ move for a more definit e statement of a pleading t o which a responsive ple ading is allowed b ut wh ich is s o vague or ambi guous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. ” F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “ [T] he basi s for re qui ring a mor e d efinite

statemen t unde r Rule 12 (e ) is uni ntelligibi l ity , ” Thorp v. Dist rict of Columbia , 309 F.R. D

. 88, 90 ( D.D.C . 20 15 ) ( citations and internal quo tati on marks omitte d) , i.e. , there mu st be a “ maj o r ambi guity or omission ” that re nders a com plaint unanswerable , United Ins. Co. of Am. v. B. W. Rudy, Inc. , 42 F.R.D. 398, 403 (E.D. Pa . 1967)

. S e e, e.g. , Dorsey v. Am. Ex pre ss C o. , 499 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2007) (granting a Rule 12(e) mot ion where th e pro s e plaintiff ’ s compla int

w as not detai led enough to provid e fair notice)

. Here, L exisNexis does not argue th at the Amended Complain t “ is so vague or ambiguous
that [i t] cannot re asonably prepare a response[ ,] ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), within the meanin g of Rule 12(e). See g ener ally LexisNexis ’ s M em. at 8

– 9. To the contrary, Lexis Nexis ’ s memorandum and reply , which thoroug hly address the alle gations in the Amended C omplaint ,14

se e, e.g
. , Lexis Nexis ’ s Mem. a t 2 ( re presenting that the plaintif f ’ s “ claim s s t em fr om the alleged

‘ reportin g ’ of ‘ inquiries ’ on his ‘ reports ’ issued by the three national consumer reportin g agenci es : Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion [ ;] also Lexis Nexis ’ s Re ply at 2 ( arguing that the First Amended Complaint “ re volves around [L exisNe x is ’ s] alleged ‘ r eporting ’ of ‘ unauthorized inqu iri es ’ on [the p ] laintiff ’ s Equifax, Experian, a nd Trans Union [sic] repor ts ” ) , exhibit a clear appreciation and understanding of what the plaintiff is alleging in his Amended Complaint

. See
Potts v. Howard U niv. , 269 F.R.D. 40 , 43 (D. D.C. 2010) ( denying a mo tion fo r a m ore definite

statement bec ause “ a review of the defendan ts ’ submiss ions established that th e defendants
unders t[oo ]d the cru x o f [Potts ’ ] claim ” )

. Instead of arguing that the plaintiff ’ s Amend e d Complaint is “ unintelli gib [ le ,] ” Thorp , 309 F.R. D

. at 90 ( citations and internal quo tati on marks
omitte d) , LexisNexis argues th at t he allegations in th e Amended Complaint conf li c t with allegations made in another case filed by the plaintiff

— Alston v. E q uifax , Civil Action No. 21

- 2323, see LexisNexis ’ s Mem. at 8

– 9. However, as the plainti ff correctly notes, see Pl. ’ s Opp ’ n

at ¶ 19 , L e xisNexis does not cite, and the Court has b een unable to locate, any authority supporting the proposit ion that a plea ding is “ vague or ambiguou s ” within the meaning of Rule 12(e), see F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), i f its allegations are contradicted by allegations mad e in other

cases. See generally Lexis Nexis ’ s Mem.; LexisNexis ’ s Reply. Furthermore, t o the extent t hat
LexisNexis i s arguin g that the Amende d Compla int is “ vag ue or ambiguous[,] ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), because the allegations are inconsistent with the Co mpl aint filed by the plaintiff in another

case , tha t question is ripe fo r discovery to explore

. Se e Johnson v. Metro

. Direct Prop

. & Cas

. I n s
. C o. , No. 18

- cv
- 1715 (JE B) , 2019 WL 1 768 51 , at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2019) ( “ T ime and

ag ain, courts in this district hav e noted that a R ule 12( e) motion is an imp ro per vehicle for15

seek ing evidence un derlyi ng a complaint ’ s factual al legati o ns
. ” )

. Accordingly, the Court will deny L e xis Nexis ’ s mo tion for a more definit e statement.
B. SageS tream ’ s Mo tion
The Cour t now turns to SageS tream ’ s motion , in which i t “ requests that this Court
dismiss al l claims alleged against [it] without prejud ice ” because, as of the date of filing of the motion, “[ the p] la int iff ha[d] faile d to provide [it with] the re quisite notice and service required
to initia t e a lawsuit [.] ” SageStrea m ’s M ot. at 1

– 2

. After Sage S trea m fi led its motion on January
24 , 2022 , the plaintiff failed to file any opposition within the peri od p er mitted by the Local Civil
Rules. See L CvR 7(b) ( “ Within 1 4 days of the date of service or at such other time as the Cour t may direct, a n opposing party shall ser ve and file a memorandum of p oints and auth oritie s in opposition to the m otion

. ” ). Therefore , o n Feb ruar y 2 5, 2022 , the Court ordered that “ on o r before March 11, 2022, the pla intiff shall file [a] memorandum in o pposition to [SageSt ream ’ s Motion] if he in tend s to opp ose th e motion [, ] ” and advis ed him that, if he failed to d o so , “ the
Court may dismiss the plaintiff’s claims ag ainst SageStream upon a finding that the arguments raised by SageStream in its motion ar e meritorious

. ” O rder at 3 ( Feb. 25, 2022 ) , ECF N o. 17

. However, as of t he da te of the issuance o f t h is Memorandum Opinion , the pl aintiff has not file d any opposition to SageS tream ’ s motion

. Because t he plaintiff has fai led to file any oppos ition or proof of ser vice , the Court will

co nsider Sa ge St r eam ’ s m otio n to b e co nceded

. See Gen eral Orde r for C ivil Cases Before the
Ho norable Reggi e B. W alton ¶ 5( e) , ECF N o. 15 ( “ If a pa rty fails to oppose a motion, the Court
may trea t the motion as conceded. ” ) ; L CvR 7 (b) ( “ If such a memorandum is not filed wi thin the

pr es crib ed time, t h e Court may treat t he moti on as conceded. ” )

. And, w ithout any proof of

s ervice on SageStream provided by the plaintiff within the ninety

- day time frame permitted

un der Federal Rule of Civil P r ocedure 4(m) or any demonstration by the plaintiff of “ good ca u se16

for [his] f ailure ” to s erve SageStream , Fed. R. Civ. P. 4( m), the Court concludes that
Sa geStream ’ s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, the Court will grant Sa geStream ’ s motion and
d ismiss without prejudice t he plaint iff ’ s claims against SageS t ream
. IV. C ONCLUSI ON
For the f oreg oing reas ons, the Cour t concludes that it must den y L e xisNe xis ’ s m ot i on and

gra nt S age Stream ’ s m ot ion.
S O ORDE RED thi s 16 th day of December , 20 22

. 8

RE GGIE B. WALTON Unit ed S tate s District Ju dge

8 The Cou rt will cont empora neously i ssue an Orde r consistent with t hi s Memorandum Op inio n.