UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Irene Burdalas, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions, 

Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-11980 

Hon. Judith E. Levy 

Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [25] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [27] 

This is a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) case in which 

plaintiff Irene Burdalas claims that defendant Experian Information 

Solutions, a credit reporting agency, failed to conduct a reasonable 

reinvestigation into her second dispute of information contained within 

a trade line in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. Pending are cross-motions 

for summary judgment. (Dkts. 25, 27.) The Court determines that oral 

argument is not necessary pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(f)(2). 

 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 325
2 

I. Background 

The parties do not dispute the material facts at issue in this case. 

On October 3, 2014, plaintiff received a collections notice from 

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC (“ERC”), identified with account 

number XXXXXXXXX9102 and reference number 109525611. (Dkt. 27-

5.) On January 28, 2015, plaintiff sent defendant a dispute letter that 

stated: 

I dispute the following: 

 Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Account Number 

Ending in 9102 regarding a debt allegedly owed to 

Comcast Cable. You are reporting this trade line on my 

credit report stating that I owe $255. This is false as I 

do not owe any money to Comcast. I was previously 

late on my bill with Comcast but I have brought that 

bill current and do not owe them anything. Please see 

my attached Billing & Payments printout from 

Comcast for service from November 2, 2014 through 

December 1, 2014 showing that I do not any balance to 

Comcast. Credit Protection Association, a debt 

collector, previously placed a trade line on my credit 

report regarding this debt allegedly owed to Comcast 

Cable but has removed it and now Enhanced Recovery 

Company is being reported on my credit report. Please 

remove this trade line from my credit report. 

Please send me results of the dispute. 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 326
3 

Thank you. 

(Dkt. 25-3 at 2.) Attached to the letter was a Comcast billing statement 

showing no payment due. (Id. at 3-4.) 

 Shortly thereafter, defendant determined that it could not delete 

the disputed trade line, and so initiated a reinvestigation directly with 

ERC. (Dkt. 25-2 at 3.) Defendant did this by sending ERC an “A/CDV,” 

an electronic verification form, and plaintiff’s letter and attachment. 

(Id.) ERC responded to defendant’s inquiry by verifying that the trade 

line information was accurate, and defendant retained the trade line on 

plaintiff’s file. (Id. at 4.) 

 Defendant notified plaintiff of the results of its reinvestigation on 

February 11, 2015. (Id.) In reinvestigating the trade line, defendant 

referred to the trade line plaintiff was disputing using a different 

number: 109525611, the trade line’s reference number, rather than the 

account number ending in 9120. (Dkt. 27-7 at 4.) Defendant included 

this reference number in its February 11, 2015 communication to 

plaintiff. (Id.) 

 On February 24, 2015, plaintiff sent defendant a second dispute 

letter that stated: 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 327
4 

I dispute the following: 

 Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Account Number 

109525611 regarding a debt allegedly owed to Comcast 

Cable. You are reporting this trade line on my credit 

report stating that I owe $255. This is false as I do not 

owe any money to Comcast. I was previously late on 

my bill with Comcast but I have brought that bill 

current and do not owe them anything. Please see my 

attached Billing & Payments printout from Comcast 

for service from November 2, 2014 through December 

1, 2014 showing that I do not any balance to Comcast. 

Credit Protection Association, a debt collector, 

previously placed a trade line on my credit report 

regarding this debt allegedly owed to Comcast Cable 

but has removed it and now Enhanced Recovery 

Company is being reported on my credit report. Please 

remove this trade line from my credit report. 

 

 Please send me results of the dispute. 

 Thank you. 

(Dkt. 25-4 at 2.) Attached to this letter was the same Comcast billing 

statement provided with plaintiff’s prior dispute letter. (Id. at 3-4.) On 

March 19, 2015, defendant notified plaintiff that it would not 

reinvestigate her dispute because she failed to provide “additional 

relevant information . . . that was not presented when [she] previously 

disputed the information[.]” (Dkt. 27-9 at 2.) 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 328
5 

 On April 9, 2015, plaintiff filed suit against defendant, ERC, and 

two other credit reporting agencies in Michigan state court, alleging 

negligent and willful violation of the FCRA. (Dkt. 1-1.) On June 2, 

2015, the case was timely removed to this Court. (Dkt. 1.) All other 

defendants have been dismissed from this case. On January 15, 2016, 

defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 25.) On 

January 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a combined motion for summary 

judgment and response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

(Dkt. 27.) The motions are now fully briefed. 

II. Legal Standard 

Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there 

is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court may 

not grant summary judgment if “the evidence is such that a reasonable 

jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248. The Court “views the evidence, 

all facts, and any inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Pure Tech Sys., Inc. v. 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 329
6 

Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 95 F. App'x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 

Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520, 526 (6th Cir.2002)). 

III. Analysis 

Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies such as defendant are 

required, “if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information 

contained in a consumer’s file at a consumer reporting agency is 

disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly 

. . . of such dispute, [to], free of charge, conduct a reasonable 

reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is 

inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or 

delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before 

the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency 

receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer or reseller.” 15 

U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff claims that defendant negligently and willfully violated 

this provision of the FCRA by failing to properly reinvestigate her 

February 24, 2015 dispute of the ERC trade line. (Dkt. 1-1 at 11-12.) 

Defendant argues that, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A), it was not 

required to reinvestigate that second dispute because the dispute was 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 330
7 

“frivolous or irrelevant, including . . . failure by [plaintiff] to provide 

sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.” In 

particular, defendant states that the second dispute provided no new 

substantive information that was not included in the first dispute, and 

that plaintiff’s failure to provide new information rendered the dispute 

frivolous. 

In 1970, the Federal Trade Commission issued an official 

commentary on this section of the FCRA, in which it stated that a credit 

reporting agency such as defendant “is not required to repeat a 

reinvestigation that it has previously conducted simply because the 

consumer reiterates a dispute about the same item of information, 

unless the consumer provides additional evidence that the item is 

inaccurate or incomplete, or alleges changed circumstances.” FTC 

Official Staff Commentary on the FCRA, 16 C.F.R. § 611.11 (1970); see 

also Omar v. Experian Info. Sol., Case No. 10-cv-01047, 2012 WL 

2930778, at *6 (S.D. Ind. July 18, 2012) (holding that a plaintiff 

providing a signed affidavit, contact information for the creditor, and an 

explanation that the creditor would not have documentation supporting 

the alleged debt was not new substantive information and defendant 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 331
8 

had no duty to reinvestigate); McCelland v. Experian Info. Sol., Case 

No. 04-c-5686, 2006 WL 2191973, at *6 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2006) (holding 

that three successive letters repeating the same assertions with no 

additional information did not trigger a duty by defendant to 

reinvestigate). 

Here, the only difference between plaintiff’s first and second 

disputes is the inclusion of the ERC reference number, which defendant 

used in processing her first dispute, in her second dispute letter. 

Otherwise, the dispute letters are identical and include the same 

Comcast bill as a supporting attachment. Plaintiff argues that these 

disputes are substantively different, however, because each “concern[s] 

different ERC account numbers.” (Dkt. 27 at 14.) 

Plaintiff does not contend that there were two ERC trade lines, or 

that there was any substantive difference between the alleged debt 

ERC attempted to collect under the account number contained in the 

first dispute and the reference number contained in the second dispute. 

Instead, plaintiff appears to argue that after she notified defendant of 

her dispute using the ERC account number, defendant investigated the 

dispute under the ERC reference number, and sent her those results. 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 332
9 

(Id. at 15-16.) Based on this, plaintiff contends that she actually 

submitted a different dispute to defendant the second time by using the 

reference number relied on in the first investigation, and that her 

second dispute was therefore not a repetitive request for a 

reinvestigation. 

The collection notice plaintiff received contained both an account 

number ending in 9102 and a reference number of 109525611. (Dkt. 27-

5.) Plaintiff’s first dispute referred to the account number ending in 

9102, while defendant’s reinvestigation ultimately used the reference 

number listed two lines below the account number on the notice 

plaintiff received from ERC. (Dkt. 27-5.) Plaintiff and defendant each 

referred to the trade line using numbers that had been clearly 

associated with the trade line since plaintiff received notice of it. 

Accordingly, defendant’s reinvestigation of plaintiff’s first dispute 

undeniably concerned the trade line she was disputing in her first letter 

– the only trade line at issue in this case. 

 The issue, then, is whether plaintiff’s second dispute letter, which 

used the reference number contained in both the October 2014 

collections notice (Dkt. 27-5) and in defendant’s February 2015 letter 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 333
10 

concerning the results of its first reinvestigation (Dkt. 27-7), provided 

any additional information that the alleged debt was inaccurate. It did 

not. 

 Plaintiff’s second dispute letter was identical to her first letter 

with the sole exception of the number she used to refer to the ERC trade 

line. Defendant already possessed knowledge of the reference number 

contained in the second dispute letter, because it used that number to 

reinvestigate the first dispute. (See id.) Even if the Court were to 

consider the reference number new information (which it was not), it 

was not new information that would show the ERC trade line was 

inaccurate. It was instead a different way of identifying the same trade 

line that defendant had previously reinvestigated. 

 Plaintiff provided no new substantive information to defendant in 

her second dispute letter that would show that the ERC trade line was 

inaccurate. Accordingly, defendant had no duty to conduct a second 

reinvestigation, because the dispute was frivolous under the meaning of 

15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A), and plaintiff’s claims of negligent and willful 

violation of the FCRA by defendant must be dismissed. 

 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 334
11 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ordered that: 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 25) is 

GRANTED; 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 27) is DENIED; 

and 

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 17, 2016. 

s/Felicia M. Moses 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

5:15-cv-11980-JEL-EAS Doc # 30 Filed 02/17/16 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 335