(2) Trans Union’s failure to update its records on the November 15, 2001 credit report; and
(3) the address used by Plaintiff on the consumer debt verification form. However, it is not
proper to resolve credibility disputes on summary judgment.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), a collection agency such as Defendant must, after
receiving notice of a debt dispute, “conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed
information. The investigation only needs to be reasonable, but generally the determination of
reasonableness is a factual question that “cannot be resolved on summary judgment unless the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of the procedures is beyond question.” See Crabill v. Trans
Union, LLC, 259 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2001). However, a collection agency is not
automatically liable, even if it reported an inaccuracy, so long as its investigatory procedures are
reasonable. See Sarver v. Experian Info. Solutions, 390 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir. 2004) (Sarver).

Defendant contends its investigation was reasonable because practices and procedures
were in place to ensure a disputed debt was properly handled and; as evidence of these
procedures, Defendant cites a prior investigation initiated by Plaintiff that was resolved in her
favor. It is also undisputed that Trans Union received the returned consumer debt verification
form validating the debt from Defendant; this action is evidence that Defendant completed an
investigation, following its procedures, in returning the form to Trans Union.

Further, unlike Sarver, where the investigating entity processed a large volume of
information, Defendant here claims to review each debt in a more focused manner by actually
contacting the creditor. Defendant also scans a copy of the completed consumer debt verification
form into its computer upon completion of its investigation. Defendant, though, has failed to

produce a scanned copy of the completed form or any other affidavits, depositions, answers to


In January 2003 and several times thereafter, Defendant requested that Trans Union purge
all of Defendant’s accounts because of data problems. Def.’s 56.1 4 23. However, in February
2003, Plaintiff's mortgage application was rejected, in part, because the debt Plaintiff purportedly
owed to Defendant was still on her credit report. PI.’s 56.1 4/17; Pl.’s Ex. D at 3.

ANALYSIS

Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted because: (1) it never
furnished information to Trans Union nor received the consumer debt verification form from
Trans Union regarding Plaintiffs purported debt and (2) its policy and procedures comply with
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A), credit reporting agencies such as Trans Union have the
duty to “provide notification of the [consumer] dispute to any [collection agency] who provided
any item of information in the dispute.” Defendant thus argues that because it did not provide
any information to Trans Union nor received a notification from Trans Union regarding
Plaintiff's dispute, it cannot be held liable.

According to Defendant, it did not: (1) acquire an interest in the Thrifty Car Rental debt
in 2001, (2) have an account number for this purported debt, and (3) receive a consumer debt
verification form concerning the purported debt. Def.’s 56.1 9] 6, 16, 17. Plaintiff argues that
Trans Union did send a consumer debt verification form to Defendant, and Trans Union concurs.
Pl.’s 56.16. Defendant recognizes that this creates a genuine issue of material fact but argues
that this “credibility dispute” should be decided in favor of Defendant because of the undisputed

irregularities: (1) concerning the signature on the consumer debt verification form;


interrogatories, admissions, or other specific evidence to demonstrate that it completed an
investigation regarding the consumer debt verification form at issue. The negative inference
resulting from this lack of evidence must be drawn in favor of Plaintiff when ruling on a motion
for summary judgment. Accordingly, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether
Defendant, if it received the consumer debt verification form, actually completed a reasonable
investigation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

omndelaaty 28 2005— YW LD sa

W. DARRAH
Uy ‘ed States District Judge



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDICE BROWN,
Plaintiff,

v. No: 03 C 5774
TRANS UNION LLC,

CAPITAL ONE BANK,

ALLIED COLLECTIONS,
WENB/VICTORIA’S SECRET, and
GATEWAY COMPUTERS/HSB,

Judge John W. Darrah

weer ww

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Brandice Brown, filed suit against multiple parties, including Defendant Allied
Collections. Plaintiffs claim alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff's consumer
dispute. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the
following reasons, that motion is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c);
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Serv., Inc., 40 F.3d 146, 150 (7th Cir. 1994). “One
of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually
unsupported claims or defenses... .” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Thus,

although the moving party on a motion for summary judgment is responsible for demonstrating


to the court why there is no genuine issue of material fact, the non-moving party must go beyond
the face of the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file to demonstrate, through specific evidence, that a genuine issue of material fact exists and to
show that a rational jury could return a verdict in the non-moving party’s favor. Celotex, 477
USS. at 322-27; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254-56 (1986); Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S, 574, 586-87 (1986); Waldridge v. American Hoechst
Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 923 (7th Cir. 1994).

Disputed facts are material when they might affect the outcome of the suit. First Ind.
Bank v. Baker, 957 F.2d 506, 507-08 (7th Cir. 1992), When reviewing a motion for summary
judgment, a court must view all inferences to be drawn from the facts in the light most favorable
to the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48; Popovits v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 185
F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 1999). However, a metaphysical doubt will not suffice. Matsushita, 475
U.S. at 586. If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative or is no more
than a scintilla, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-250.

BACKGROUND

The undisputed facts, for the purposes of this motion, taken from the parties’ Local Rule
56.1(a) & (b) statements of material facts (referred to herein as “P].’s 56.1” and “Def’s 56.1”)
and exhibits, are as follows.

Defendant is a collection agency that was assigned to collect a purported debt Plaintiff

allegedly incurred from Thrifty Car Rental. Pl.’s 56.191. Plaintiff believed that she was the


victim of identity theft and contacted Trans Union to dispute this debt. Pl.’s 56.1 9 2-3.
Typically, Trans Union would then send out a consumer debt verification form to Defendant to
launch an investigation of the dispute. PI.’s 56.1 4 3.

Defendant’s policy regarding investigations of consumer debt verification form is as
follows. First, an employee would contact the original creditor to verify the account information.
Def.’s Ex. A, Keeney Aff. 7. A manager would then review the information. Def.’s Ex. A,
Keeney Aff. | 8. The manager would then pass the form to the originating department, and the
form was then reviewed by an employee in that department responsible for credit reporting on
Defendant’s accounts. Def.’s Ex. A, Keeney Aff. 9. The form was then signed by Defendant’s
president or another authorized signatory and sent back to the credit bureau. Def.’s Ex. A,
Keeney Aff. § 10. Finally, a copy of the form was scanned into Defendant’s computer system.
Def.’s Ex. A, Keeney Aff. 9 11. This procedure was completed in resolving another debt in favor
of Plaintiff. Def.’s 56.1 9] 6-15.

On October 18, 2001, Trans Union purportedly issued the cosnumer debt verification
form to Defendant regarding Plaintiff's debt. P].’s 56.1 6. This form incorrectly listed
Las Vegas, Nevada as Plaintiff's residence. Def.’s 56.1 9] 9; Def.’s Ex. A, Feeney Aff. Ex. 1.
When the form was returned to Trans Union, a signature from some person other than
Defendant’s president was on the form. Def.’s 56.1 {| 18; Def.’s Ex. A, Feeney Aff. 2. After
Trans Union received the consumer debt verification form from Defendant, Trans Union updated
its records to show that Defendant validated this debt; however, this change was not reflected on

a consumer credit report dated November 15, 2001. Def.’s 56.1 ff 20, 22.