BROWN V. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLES EDWARD BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. 1:23CV195

FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND

SERVICES CORP. and ASHCOTT,

LLC,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This case is before the court on Charles Edward Brown’s motion

for default judgment against Defendant Ashcott, LLC (Doc. 52) and

motion to lift stay as to consideration of that motion (Doc. 100).

For the reasons that follow, the stay will be lifted and the motion

for default judgment will be granted as to liability but denied

without prejudice as to damages.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts alleged in the amended complaint are as

follows: Brown is a resident of North Carolina. (Doc. 42 ¶ 16.)

Around December 2022, he applied for a job as a long-haul truck

driver with FedEx through a third-party vendor, FXG Vendor J D SR

Trucking Inc. (“FXG”). (Id. ¶ 46.) Brown successfully completed

an interview and a drug test, as required for the job application

process. (Id. ¶ 49.) FedEx extended an offer to him with a start

date in January 2023, but his employment was contingent upon the

successful completion of a background check. (Id. ¶ 50.) FXG

contracted with Defendant First Advantage Background Services

Corporation (“First Advantage”) to conduct background checks for

its prospective employees, and on December 26, 2022, it ordered a

criminal background check on Brown. (Id. ¶ 52.) First Advantage

retained Ashcott to perform criminal records searches for its

background reports. (Id. ¶ 71.) “Ashcott is a South Carolina

business . . . [with] a principal place of business” in South

Carolina. (Id. ¶ 20.) It “regularly engages in the practice of

evaluating and/or assembling information on consumers for the

purpose of furnishing consumer reports for employment purposes to

third parties, and uses interstate commerce, including the

Internet, for the purpose of preparing and furnishing such consumer

reports.” (Id. ¶ 21.)

On December 29, 2022, First Advantage purchased background

reports on Brown’s criminal history prepared by Ashcott. (Id.

¶¶ 71, 73.) Ashcott then searched court records in Philadelphia

County, Pennsylvania, and on December 30, 2022, it published a

report to First Advantage that reported several criminal

convictions for Brown. (Id. ¶ 75.) Ashcott claimed to have

matched several felony criminal convictions to Brown based on his

first, middle, and last names and his full Social Security number.

(Id. ¶ 77.) This criminal record was then included in the

background report First Advantage provided to FXG. (Id. ¶ 78.)

On January 9, 2023, FXG informed Brown that his application

for employment had been denied due to the convictions in his

criminal record reported by First Advantage. (Id. ¶ 78.) Brown

then obtained a copy of the background report and saw that the

criminal convictions included in the report did not, in fact,

belong to him. (Id. ¶ 79.) The convictions were those of another

Charles Brown, who had a different middle name and Social Security

number from Plaintiff Charles Brown. (Id. ¶ 80.) On January 10,

2022, Brown informed FXG of this mistake and was told to contact

First Advantage to correct the report and that he could re-apply

for the job thereafter. (Id. ¶¶ 80-81.) Brown was embarrassed

and distressed by the false report accusing him of having a

criminal record. He did not re-apply for the job.

Brown has advised the court that he has settled his claim

against First Advantage. (Doc. 99.) Thus, there is no risk of

inconsistent judgments, and the court will lift its oral stay (see

Doc. 93) on consideration on Brown’s motion for default judgment.

(Doc. 100.)

II. ANALYSIS

When a “motion for default judgment is unopposed, the court

must exercise sound judicial discretion to determine whether

default judgement should be entered.” United States v. Williams,

No. 1:17-cv-00278, 2017 WL 3700901, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 25, 2017)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Upon the entry of default,

the defaulted party is deemed to have admitted all well-pleaded

allegations of fact contained in the complaint.” J&J Sports

Prods., Inc. v. Romenski, 845 F. Supp. 2d 703, 705 (W.D.N.C. 2012).

“However, the defendant is not deemed to have admitted conclusions

of law.” Id. The party moving for default judgment must still

show that the defaulted party was properly served, Md. State

Firemen's Ass'n v. Chaves, 166 F.R.D. 353, 354 (D. Md. 1996), and

that the “unchallenged factual allegations constitute a legitimate

cause of action,” Agora Fin., LLC v. Samler, 725 F. Supp. 2d 491,

494 (D. Md. 2010); see Romenski, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 705 (default

judgment is proper when “the well-pleaded allegations in the

complaint support the relief sought”). Finally, “[i]f the court

determines that liability is established, the court must then

determine the appropriate amount of damages. The court does not

accept factual allegations regarding damages as true, but rather

must make an independent determination regarding such

allegations.” Samler, 725 F. Supp. 2d at 494 (citation omitted).

Furthermore, the court may hold a hearing to “(A) conduct an

accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the

truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other

matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Alternatively, “the Court may

award relief without a hearing if it is supported by the

pleadings.” J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. After Six Prods., Inc.,

No. 3:13-CV-591, 2014 WL 644400, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 19, 2014)

(citing Anderson v. Found. for the Advancement, Educ. and Emp. of

Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 507 (4th Cir. 1998)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A) allows service on

a corporation consistent with Rule 4(e)(1), which permits service

that “follow[s] state law for serving a summons in an action

brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the

district court is located or where service is made.” The relevant

North Carolina statute allows service on a corporation by, among

other ways, “mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint,

registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed

to the officer, director or agent to be served.” N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(6)(c). In this case, Ashcott was served with

the amended complaint and summons on May 16, 2024 by service on

its registered agent, Jennifer Davidson. (Doc. 45.) Thus, the

record reflects that Brown properly served Ashcott.

Brown brought one claim against Ashcott for failure to follow

reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy pursuant

to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). To prevail

on a claim for violation of § 1681e(b), a plaintiff must prove

that his consumer report contains inaccurate information and that

the credit reporting agency did not follow reasonable procedures

to assure maximum possible accuracy of that consumer report.

Dalton v. Cap. Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409, 415 (4th

Cir. 2001). “A report is inaccurate when it is patently incorrect

or when it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that

it can be expected to have an adverse effect.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted) (alterations adopted). Here, the facts

in the amended complaint demonstrate that the background report

prepared by Ashcott for First Advantage was inaccurate: it

attributed criminal records to Brown that did not belong to him.

Brown’s allegations also show that Ashcott did not follow

reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the

report. Ashcott claimed that the criminal record was matched to

Brown by his full name and his full Social Security number when

that could not be true. If Ashcott had reviewed the middle name

and Social Security number of the Charles Brown who was associated

with the criminal records it identified and compared those

identifiers to Plaintiff Brown, it would have discovered that they

did not match. To report that the criminal record had been matched

to Plaintiff Brown on his full name and Social Security number was

not reasonable. Brown claims that this error not only cost him

the job opportunity with FedEx but also caused him emotional

distress, which is compensable under FCRA. See, e.g., Sloane v.

Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 510 F.3d 495, 503-04 (4th Cir. 2007).

Thus, the court will grant Brown’s motion for default judgment

against Ashcott as to liability.

As to damages, the amended complaint alleges that Brown’s job

with FedEx would have paid “nearly $2,000 per week” and was full

time. (Doc. 42 ¶ 101.) In his brief in support of his motion for

default judgment, Brown requests $100,000 in compensatory damages

and $100,00 in punitive damages. (Doc. 53 at 13-14.) Brown

clarifies that the job with FedEx would have paid $1,600 to $1,800

a week, which is $83,200 to $93,600 per year. (Id. at 13.) He

seeks lost income for one year and argues that $100,000 is

appropriate to compensate for that year of lost income and the

emotional distress caused by the inaccurate report. (Id.)

There is evidence in the record, however, that Brown was

employed from the time he applied for the job with FedEx until

April 2023, when he voluntary quit his job. (Doc. 68-2 at 6:4-

7:18.) That evidence also demonstrates that even while Brown was

unemployed from April 2023 to October 2023, he earned income,

though it is unclear how. (Id. at 8:20-9:4.) Brown’s requested

relief does not account for this other income. It is Brown’s

burden to prove actual damages and, absent some justification for

doing so, the court declines to award him damages for claimed lost

income where he appears to have been otherwise employed during

that same period. Therefore, the court will hold a hearing on

damages unless Brown files support for his damages request that

accounts for income he earned in the year following the denial of

his job application by FXG.

The court will deny Brown’s request for punitive damages.

Punitive damages are available for willful violations of FCRA. 15

U.S.C. § 1681n(a); Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 53 (2007).

Willful violations of FCRA include both knowing and reckless

violations. Safeco, 551 U.S. at 59. The pleadings do not support

Brown’s contention that Ashcott’s violation of FCRA was willful.

Ashcott’s report noted a match on Brown’s full name and Social

Security number to a criminal record that, in fact, belonged to

another Charles Brown with a different middle name and Social

Security number. However, the amended complaint does not allege

any facts regarding how Ashcott conducted its search of the court

records in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The facts alleged

demonstrate, as the court has found, Ashcott’s failure to comply

with FCRA, but they do not demonstrate that this error was

necessarily a knowing or reckless violation of the statute.

Rather, the inaccurate report could have equally been the result

of negligence in either the preparation of the report or in

connection with the search. Therefore, the motion for default

judgment will be denied insofar as it seeks an award of punitive

damages.

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Brown’s motion to lift stay (Doc. 100) is

GRANTED and Brown’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 52) is

GRANTED as to liability but DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to damages.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is set for a hearing on

damages on August 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom # 2, unless

Brown files support for his damages request within 14 days

consistent with this order.

Any request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs will be

considered following resolution of the damages issue.

/s/ Thomas D. Schroeder

United States District Judge

July 18, 2025