1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TIFFANY ALLEN, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11394 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, INC. 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT EXPERIAN 

INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #12) 

 In 2015, Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) issued 

a credit report for Plaintiff Tiffany Allen (“Allen”). Among other things, Experian 

reported that Allen owed a delinquent debt to Comenity Capital Bank (“Comenity 

Bank”) (the “Disputed Credit Reference”). Allen disputed that she owed the debt, 

and she contacted Experian and demanded that it remove the Disputed Credit 

Reference from her credit report. Experian conducted a reinvestigation and 

ultimately decided not to remove the Disputed Credit Reference. Allen alleges that 

Experian’s reinvestigation was inadequate and violated the requirements of the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the “FCRA”). Experian has 

now moved for summary judgment on Allen’s claims (the “Motion”). (See ECF 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 191
2 

#12.) For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Experian’s 

reinvestigation did comply with the FCRA. The Court therefore GRANTS the 

Motion. 

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 In 2012, Allen purchased a package of laser hair removal treatments from 

American Laser Skincare (“ALS”). (See Allen Dep. at 7, ECF #12-2 at 3, Pg. ID 

98.) Allen financed her purchase through Comenity Bank. (See id. at 8, ECF #12-

2 at 4, Pg. ID 99.) Before Allen could complete her treatments, ALS shut down. 

(See Notice, ECF #13-3 at 1, Pg. ID 171.) Allen thereafter stopped making her 

monthly finance payments to Comenity Bank. (See Allen Dep. at 13, ECF #12-2 at 

5, Pg. ID 100.) Comenity Bank subsequently reported to Experian that Allen’s 

account was delinquent, and Experian added the Disputed Credit Reference to 

Allen’s credit report. 

 In or around January 2015, Allen learned that her credit report from 

Experian included the Disputed Credit Reference. (See id. at 24, ECF #12-2 at 7, 

Pg. ID 102.) On January 20, 2015, Allen contacted Experian, sent proof that ALS 

had shut down before she completed her treatments, and demanded that the 

Disputed Credit Reference be removed from her credit report (“Allen’s Demand 

Letter” or the “Demand Letter”): 

You are reporting this trade line on my credit report 

stating that I was late in making my payment by 60 days 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 192
3 

and that I owe a balance of $3,812.00. This is false. This 

balance is the result of a package of services that I 

purchased but never received from American Laser 

Skincare. It had closed its clinic before I could obtain 

these services. Please see the attached printout from 

www.americanlaser.com confirming that American Laser 

closed its clinics. Please remove the balance of 

$3,812.00 and the “60 days past due” language from my 

credit report. 

(ECF #12-13 at 2, Pg. ID 104.) 

 Upon receiving Allen’s Demand Letter, Experian began a reinvestigation to 

determine the status of the Disputed Credit Reference. Because Experian could not 

“independently verify [Allen’s] allegations” by reviewing Allen’s Demand Letter 

alone, Experian “sent a request to Comenity [Bank] to verify that [Allen’s] 

payment history was reporting accurately.” (Affidavit of Mary Methvin at ¶ 8, ECF 

#12-4 at 3, Pg. ID 109.) 

 Experian used an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification Form (the 

“CDV Form”) to communicate its “request” to Comenity Bank. (See id. at ¶ 9, 

ECF #12-4 at 3, Pg. ID 109.) The CDV Form is “the primary method used in the 

consumer reporting industry . . . to verify credit information with furnishers like 

Comenity [Bank].” (Id., ECF #12-4 at 3-4, Pg. ID 109-10.) The CDV Form asked 

Comenity Bank to “verify [Allen’s] present and previous account status and 

history.” (Id. at ¶ 11, ECF #12-2 at 4, Pg. ID 110.) Importantly, Experian included 

both Allen’s Demand Letter and the attachment to that letter (showing that ALS 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 193
4 

had gone out of business) with the CDV Form it sent to Comenity Bank.1

 Thus, 

Experian’s “request” included three items: the CDV Form, Allen’s Demand Letter, 

and the attachment to the Demand Letter.

 Comenity Bank responded to Experian’s request and “verifi[ed]” that the 

information it provided Experian with respect to the Disputed Credit Reference 

“was accurate.” (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13, ECF #12-4 at 4, Pg. ID 110.) Based on Comenity 

Bank’s verification that Allen did in fact owe the bank a delinquent debt, Experian 

did not remove the Disputed Credit Reference from Allen’s credit report at that 

time. (See id. at ¶ 13, ECF #12-4 at 4, Pg. ID 110.) 

After Allen filed this suit, “Comenity [Bank] directed Experian to remove 

the disputed late payments [from Allen’s credit report], which [Experian] did.” (Id.

at ¶ 15, ECF #12-4 at 4, Pg. ID 110.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On March 3, 2015, Allen filed this action against Experian, Comenity Bank, 

Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Michigan Aesthetic Services, P.C., in the 

35th District Court for the State of Michigan. (See Compl., ECF #1-1 at 2-13, Pg. 

ID 8-19.) The Defendants then removed Allen’s action to this Court. (See Notice of 

                                                            

1

 Allen has repeatedly acknowledged – both in her brief (see Allen Resp. Br. at 2-3, 

ECF #13 at 7-8, Pg. ID 153-54) and again during the Court’s May 9, 2016, hearing 

on the Motion – that Experian’s request to Comenity Bank included Allen’s 

Demand Letter and attachment. Thus, that fact is undisputed for purposes of this 

Motion. 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 194
5 

Removal, ECF #1.) After removal, Allen voluntarily dismissed her claims against 

all Defendants except for Experian. (See Notices, ECF ## 5-7.) 

 In her Complaint, Allen alleges that Experian “negligently failed to maintain 

and/or follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the 

information it reported to one or more third parties pertaining to Ms. Allen in 

violation of 15 USC 1681e(b) [sic]” and “negligently failed to conduct a 

reasonable reinvestigation as required by 1681i” after Allen disputed the accuracy 

of her credit report. (Compl. at ¶¶ 41-42.) Allen also claims that Experian 

“willfully” violated these same statutory provisions. (Id. at ¶¶ 48-49.)2 

 Experian moved for summary judgment on February 19, 2016. (See ECF 

#12.) The Court held a hearing on the Motion on May 9, 2016. 

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD 

 A movant is entitled to summary judgment when it “shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact . . . .” SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Services, 

Inc., 712 F.3d 321, 326–27 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)) (quotations omitted). When reviewing the record, 

“the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Id. 

                                                            

2

 At the hearing on the Motion, Allen’s counsel conceded that Allen had 

abandoned her claims with respect to Experian’s procedures that she had brought 

pursuant to Section 1681e. 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 195
6 

 “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving 

party’s] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury 

could reasonably find for [that party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Summary 

judgment is not appropriate when “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement 

to require submission to a jury.” Id. at 251-252. “Credibility determinations, the 

weighing of the evidence, and the drafting of legitimate inferences from the facts 

are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . .” Id. at 255. 

ANALYSIS 

The FCRA regulates the conduct of agencies like Experian that issue credit 

reports. Among other things, when a consumer disputes a reference on her credit 

report, the FCRA requires credit agencies to “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.” 15 U.S.C. 

§1681i(a)(1)(A). Allen insists Experian violated this provision when it failed to 

conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of her complaint with respect to the Disputed 

Credit Reference. The Court disagrees. 

 The reasonableness of a credit reporting agency’s reinvestigation should 

often be assessed by a jury. However, courts have held that a credit reporting 

agency’s reinvestigation may be reasonable as a matter of law where it sends a 

CDV Form to a creditor and where it has no evidence that the creditor is an 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 196
7 

unreliable source. See, e.g., Fried v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 14-

12865, 2015 WL 5591117, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 25, 2015) (holding Experian 

conducted a “reasonable investigation” when it sent a CDV Form to a company 

that reported a debt as delinquent and plaintiff provided no evidence that the 

company was unreliable); Quinn v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2004 WL 

609357, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2014) (same). 

 As these courts have explained, 

[q]uite understandably in light of the staggering amount 

of credit that fuels our economy and the enormous 

burden (and hence cost) that a general requirement of 

more detailed follow-up procedures would impose on the 

system, the CDV procedure alone is accepted by courts 

as an adequate method both for assuring accuracy and 

for reinvestigation. 

Lee v. Experian Information Solutions, 2003 WL 22287351, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 

2003) (emphasis added). Notably, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit has affirmed summary judgment in favor of a credit reporting agency 

where the agency conducted a reinvestigation by engaging in the CDV Form 

procedure. See Dickens v. Trans Union Corp, 18 Fed. App’x 315, 319 (6th Cir. 

2001) (affirming summary judgment where credit reporting agency sent 

consumer’s bank an electronic CDV Form, and the bank “verified that the account 

had been reported accurately . . . .”). 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 197
8 

 Here, after Experian received Allen’s Demand Letter, it did more than 

simply send a CDV Form to Comenity Bank. It attached to the form both Allen’s 

Demand Letter and the internet printout Allen had provided showing that ALS had 

gone out of business. Simply put, Experian communicated the nature of Allen’s 

dispute to Comenity Bank in Allen’s very own words. It is hard to imagine a better 

way to inform Comenity Bank of the essence of Allen’s dispute. And Experian 

completed and closed its reinvestigation process only after Comenity Bank 

confirmed that the Disputed Credit Reference “was accurate.” (Methvin Aff. at ¶ 

12, ECF #12-4 at 4, Pg. ID 110.) Under these circumstances, Experian’s 

reinvestigation and retention of the Disputed Credit Reference on Allen’s credit 

report was reasonable. See, e.g., Dickens, supra; Fried, supra; and Quinn, supra. 

 Allen counters that Experian’s reinvestigation was insufficient because 

Experian failed to fully inform Comenity Bank about the nature of Allen’s dispute. 

(See Allen Br. at 3, ECF #13 at 8, Pg. ID 154.) Allen acknowledges that Experian 

sent the Demand Letter (and its attachment) to Comenity Bank along with the 

CDV Form, but she says that that was not a reasonable way to communicate the 

essence of her dispute to the bank. At the hearing before the Court, Allen’s 

counsel argued that Experian should have expressly referenced the Demand Letter 

on the CDV Form itself (or should have included on the CDV Form an express 

direction to review Allen’s Demand Letter and attachment). Counsel insisted that 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 198
9 

without such an express reference to the Demand Letter on the CDV Form itself, 

the form could not have reasonably communicated to Comenity Bank the true 

nature of Allen’s dispute. 

 The Court disagrees. Experian sent Comenity Bank a total of three short 

documents: the CDV Form, Allen’s Demand Letter, and the attachment to the 

Demand Letter. All three documents related directly to the nature of Allen’s 

dispute. It was entirely reasonable for Experian to believe that Comenity Bank (1) 

would review all three documents in the process of formulating its response to the 

CDV Form, and (2) had, in fact, reviewed the documents before it confirmed that 

the Disputed Credit Reference “was accurate.” Likewise, any reasonable recipient 

(in Comenity Bank’s position) of the documents sent by Experian would have 

understood Experian’s intent that the documents were intended to be reviewed 

collectively. Indeed, that is the only reasonable conclusion Comenity Bank could 

have drawn. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Experian to have 

included the documents with the CDV Form. Allen’s assertion that Experian failed 

to inform Comenity Bank of the nature of her dispute is belied by the record. 

Experian’s reinvestigation was reasonable as a matter of law.3

                                                            

3

 Because the Court concludes that Experian’s reinvestigation was reasonable and 

complied with the FCRA as a matter of law, it need not address Experian’s 

alternative argument that the information it reported with respect to the Disputed 

Credit Report was accurate. 

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 199
10 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Experian’s 

motion for summary judgment (ECF #12) is GRANTED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 10, 2016 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on May 10, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 200