Ryan, 2002 WL 1100440 at *3. Ford says that plaintiff remained liable on the auto loan even after
his divorce and, thus, the information it supplied to Trans Union about late payments was correct.

The success of this argument depends on a variety of documents outside of the pleadings:
the Ford retail installment contract, the marital settlement agreement executed by plaintiff and his
ex-wife and correspondence between plaintiff and Ford. Asa general rule, the Court cannot consider
such material when deciding a motion to dismiss. See FeD. R. Civ. P. 12(b). There is an exception

to the Rule for documents that are “referred to in the plaintiffs complaint and are central to [his]

claim,” Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7" Cir. 1993), but only
the contracts even arguably meet those requirements. (See Compl. | 8 (alleging that plaintiff's ex-
wife assumed responsibility for payments to Ford after their divorce).)

Moreover, even if we did consider the contracts, it would do Ford no good. Those documents
show that plaintiff and his ex-wife entered into a contract with Ford and that plaintiff's ex-wife
subsequently agreed to assume sole responsibility for that contract. They do not, however, establish
that “[plaintiff] and his ex-spouse did not renegotiate the [retail installment contract] with Ford ..
_ after the [marital settlement agreement] was executed,” as Ford contends. (See Ford Mot. Dismiss
at 5.) Absent incontrovertible proof of that proposition, Ford’s quest to have this suit dismissed with

prejudice fails.'

1We could consider all of the documents submitted by Ford if we converted its motion to
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b). But given the fact that
discovery was stayed, at Ford’s request, pending the outcome of this motion, the Court declines to
do so.



agencies to which the person furnished the information and
that compile and maintain files on a nationwide basis.

15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a)(2), 1681s-2(b)(1), According to the statute, those duties arise only after the
information supplier is notified by a consumer credit reporting agency that a consumer challenges
credit information. Id.; see Ryan v. Trans Union, No. 99 C 216, 2000 WL 1100440, at *1 (N.D. Ill.
Aug. 4, 2000). Plaintiff has not alleged that Trans Union told Ford he was disputing his credit
information. In fact, his allegation that Trans Union “fail[ed] to provide all relevant information
provided by the plaintiff regarding the dispute . . . to the furnishing entities,” suggests the opposite
is true. (Compl. { 20(b).) Absent an allegation that Ford received the required notification, the
FCRA claim plaintiff asserts against it must be dismissed.

Even if the notice problem can be cured by amendment, Ford says that there are other
problems that cannot. One of those problems is timeliness. Ford says that plaintiff's FCRA claim
arose on May 31, 1999, the date plaintiff's ex-wife assumed responsibility for the car payments.
Because this action was filed almost four years later, Ford says it is time-barred.

The Court disagrees. According to the statute, “[a]n action to enforce a liability created under
[the FCRA] may be brought . . . within two years from the date on which the liability arises.” 15
U.S.C. § 1681p. Ford’s liability under section 1681s-2(b) is contingent on its receipt of notice from
Trans Union about the credit dispute. Because we do not know when, or even if, Ford received that
notice, we cannot conclude that plaintiff's claim is time-barred.

Ford aiso says plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed with prejudice because it did not, in fact,
violate the statute. The FCRA imposes liability on information suppliers only if they continue to

supply inaccurate information after being notified of a credit dispute. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D);


Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Ford Motor Credit Company’s motion to dismiss is granted.
Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to amend his
complaint in accordance with this Order. If he fails to do so within that period, the dismissal will
be with prejudice.

ENTER:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

parep: 6-6-0353



*-saince Order Porm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Na f Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Oth
mor Magistrate Judge Paul E. Plunkett than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 1376 DATE 8/6/2003
CASE Michael Moline vs. Trans Union , LLC, et al
TITLE

of (he motion being presented.]

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due___.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon___set fort.

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__——sat__—
(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on___—s set for at.
) a Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) CIFRCP4i(a)(2).

set for August 27, 2003 at 10:30a.m.

(al) @ {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Cee | [Other docket entry] - ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Ford Motor Credit
Company’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to amend his complaint in accordance with this Order. If he fails to do so within that
period, the dismissal will be with prejudice. Ruling date of September 3, 2003 is stricken. Status hearing

No notices required, advised in open court.

notices required.
No Teq number of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

AUG ,0 7 2003

Bate dockeled

Notified counsel by telephone.

v | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form, 4¥unod dorsi Sn

o | Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

at:n Hd 9- Sn 60 sc nado
courtroom fate mailed notice
7TBK depuiy’s ONL IXI00 HO4 OWS,
Date/tirhe reeclved in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL MOLINE, )
)
Plaintiff, y
)
v. ) No. 03 C 1376

) Paul E. Plunkett, Senior Judge
TRANS UNION, LLC. and )
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this suit, Michael Moline charges Ford Motor Credit Company (“Ford”) with violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”). Ford has filed a Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss that claim. For the reasons set forth below,

the motion is granted.

The Legal Standard

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Forseth v. Village
of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2000). No claim will be dismissed unless “it is clear that no

relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.”

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).

1 | S



v

Facts

Trans Union is a consumer credit reporting agency. (Compl. {] 5, 17.) Trans Union has
issued credit reports on plaintiff that indicate he failed to make timely payments to Ford on a car
loan. (Id. {| 7-10.) That information is false, plaintiff says, because his ex-wife assumed sole
responsibility for those payments after she and plaintiff divorced. (Id. { 8.)

On January 7, 2003, plaintiff wrote to Trans Union, in accordance with its established
procedure, challenging the accuracy of the information on his credit report. (Id. 11.) Trans Union
refused to change plaintiff's credit report and has continued to disseminate the incorrect credit
information to third parties, in violation of the FCRA. (Id. 4 12.)

Plaintiff says Ford also violated the FCRA by, among other things, failing to conduct an

investigation into the information that he disputed. (Id. {[ 34.)

Discussion
Plaintiff says Ford violated section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, which imposes various duties
on companies that supply information to consumer credit reporting agencies. (See Compl. { 34.)
In relevant part, that section provides:

After receiving notice [from a consumer reporting agency] of a

dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any informa-

tion provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person

shall —

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed informa-
tion;

(B) __ review all relevant information provided by the consumer
reporting agency pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title;

(C) _ report the results of the investigation to the consumer report-
ing agency; and

(D) _ ifthe investigation finds that the information is incomplete or
inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting

2