IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD WHITE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0162-KD-N

)

GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., NDC )

CHECK SERVICES, INC., and UNITED )

RESOURCE SYSTEMS, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant

United Resource Systems, Inc. (United), plaintiff Ronald White’s (White) response, United’s

reply, and supporting evidence (docs. 29, 30, 35, 42). Upon consideration, and for the reasons

set forth herein, United’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

I. Procedural background

On March 26, 2009, White filed his complaint against the defendants alleging violations

of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1592, et seq., and the Fair

Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. In Count V, White alleges that United

is a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). White alleges that United

violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) of the FDCPA by attempting to collect unauthorized amounts and

also violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) of the FDCPA by communicating to third parties, including

the consumer reporting agencies, false information that White still owed a debt to United when a

reasonable investigation would have shown that the debt was paid. In Count VI, White alleges

that United violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA by furnishing false and derogatory

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 9
1

 Exhibit 35-2 is a blank page. However, in White’s statement of facts, he explains that

the debt appeared on this report. United does not dispute this in its reply. 

2

credit information to the consumer credit reporting agencies when it continued to report the debt

due after it had been paid in full. White also alleges that because United knew the debt had been

paid, it violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a) of the FCRA when it pulled White’s credit report on May

16, 2006 because United had no permissible purpose for accessing his credit information at that

time. (doc. 1, p. 10-14) 

II. Factual background

Ronald White is a consumer who incurred a debt to Mountain Radiology in 2004. The

debt was turned over to United for collection and White paid the debt in either 2004 or 2005. In

2005, White realized the debt continued to report on his credit reports as an account remaining

unpaid. White disputed the debt with the credit report agencies and United. 

On October 25, 2005, White received a letter from United stating as follows:

Pursuant to your request let this confirm that the below referenced account is paid

in full and we consider the matter closed. United Resource Systems, Inc., has

since notified the three major credit reporting agencies that your obligation has

been satisfied.

(doc. 35-1). On November 14, 2005, the debt again appeared on White’s credit report (doc. 35-

2).1

 Plaintiff disputed the debt to Equifax. 

On December 9, 2005, Equifax sent White a copy of his Equifax credit file. Equifax

reported the following “Results of Your Investigation”, in relevant part:

We have researched the collection account, 61894601. The results are: This item

has been deleted from the credit file. If you have additional questions about this

item please contact: United Resource Systems, 10075 W Colfax Ave., Lakewood,

CO 80215-3907 Phone (303) 205-0152.

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 9
3

(doc. 35-3). 

On May 11, 2006, White wrote Experian as follows:

I have had this very issue removed from my credit report for years now, and it

keeps popping up. I have attached a letter from the company at United Resource

Systems stating that this was handled months ago . . . this making several times

now we have handled this. 

I am buying a home. I need [it] removed asap. I spoke with a supervisor the

other day and they requested this paper. 

PLEASE rush this matter, as I would greatly appreciate it. It wasn’t supposed to

be on my credit report in the first place, and the removable is holding up my home

closing. 

(doc. 35-4) (emphasis in original). 

On May 23, 2006, Equifax wrote White and in relevant part stated as follows:

Below are the results of your request for Equifax to reinvestigate certain elements

of your Equifax credit file. Equifax contacted each source directly and our

investigation is now completed. . . . 

We have researched the collection account. Account # D618946N1. The results

are: This item has been deleted from the credit file. 

(doc. 35-5). This letter also stated that a “consumer statement has been added/updated to your

credit file as you had requested.” (Id.). White’s consumer statement read as follows: 

“Global is not my at all. URSystems closed this acc. 2 years ago. I have a letter” (Id.)

On March 26, 2007, Equifax provided White a three-in-one credit report which showed

that Equifax did not report the United Resource Systems debt. In the section entitled, “Account

Information”, TransUnion reported the debt as an “Account Type” - “Open”, with an

“Individual” responsible for payment, an opening date of “12/2003", a “Balance Date” of

“4/2006", a “Balance Amount” of “$0", a “High/Limit” of “$142.00", the “Account Status” as

“Collection”, and a “Past Due Amount” of “0". The comments section stated: “Original Creditor

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 9
4

Med1 Mountain Radiology Paid Collection”. The report also showed the debt with “United Res

Syst” as a “0" for 30, 60 and 90 days past due (doc. 35-6, p. 16-17). Experian reported White’s

account under the section titled “Collections” and identified “United Resource Syst” as the

“Collector”. The account status was reported as “Open” but the “Balance Amount” was blank.

(doc. 35-6, p. 20). 

The report also included White’s consumer statement to Equifax: “Global is not my at all.

URSystems closed this acc 2 years ago I have a letter . . . ” (doc. 35-6, p. 21). There were no

consumer statements with Experian or TransUnion. (Id.) In the section entitled, “Inquiries”, the

report shows that a company identified as “United Recovery Syst” a “Collections Service”

inquired, or “pulled”, White’s credit file with Experian on May 15, 2006 (doc. 35-6, p. 19). 

On October 26, 2008, White obtained another three-in-one credit report from Equifax. 

TransUnion again reported the debt as an “Account Type” - “Open”, with an “Individual”

responsible for payment, an opening date of “12/2003", a “Balance Date” of “4/2006", a

“Balance Amount” of “$0", a “High/Limit” of “$142.00", the “Account Status” as “Collection”,

and a “Past Due Amount” of “0". The comments section stated: “Original Creditor Med1

Mountain Radiology Paid Collection”. (doc. 43-1, p. 16-17). This same information also

appeared in the section entitled “Negative Accounts”. The report explained that “Negative

Accounts” generally remain on the credit report for seven years from either “the date the account

first became past due” or from “the date of the late payment.” (doc. 43-1, p. 22, 24). The report

indicated that the debt was paid and there was a “$0" balance (doc. 43-1, p. 24). This same

information also appeared in the section entitled “Closed Accounts” (doc. 43-1, p. 24-26). In the

section entitled “Collections”, Experian reported “United Resource Syst” as a “closed” account,

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 4 of 9
5

but TransUnion and Equifax did not make any report as to United. 

On March 18, 2009, TransUnion wrote White stating as follows: 

. . . We have provided the information below in response to your request. 

Re: Dispute Status - United # 6189 NDC CK # WHIR 

Based on the information provided to TransUnion, our records show that the

information you disputed does not currently appear on your TransUnion credit

report. 

(doc. 30, Exhibit 5). 

III. Standard of Review

Summary judgment should be granted only if “there is no genuine issue as to any

material

fact and [ ] the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).9 The

party seeking summary judgment bears “the initial burden to show the district court, by reference

to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at

trial.” Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). The party seeking

summary judgment always bears the “initial responsibility of informing the district court of the

basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). If the nonmoving party fails to make “a sufficient showing

on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof,” the

moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. “In reviewing whether

the nonmoving party has met its burden, the court must stop short of weighing the evidence and

making credibility determinations of the truth of the matter. Instead, the evidence of the

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 5 of 9
6

non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Tipton

v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 998-999 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. den., 507 U.S. 911

(1993) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The mere existence of any factual dispute will

not automatically necessitate denial of a motion for summary judgment; rather, only factual

disputes that are material preclude entry of summary judgment. Lofton v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of

Children & Family Serv., 358 F.3d 804, 809 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. den., 534 U.S. 1081 (2005). 

IV. Analysis

A. Count V pursuant to the FDCPA

In Count V, White alleges that United continued to report that an outstanding balance

was owed on the collection account after White paid the debt. White alleges that this continued

reporting is an attempt to collect unauthorized amounts and a communication of false

information to third parties, including the consumer reporting agencies, in violation of the

FDCPA. 

On motion for summary judgment, United argues that White has provided no evidence

that United is the source for the alleged incorrect and illegal post-payment reporting of this debt

to the three credit reporting agencies. United also argues that White has produced no evidence

that the credit reporting agencies incorrectly reported the status of White’s account. United

argues that White “cannot rely on mere speculation or conjecture” and must “go beyond the 

pleadings to establish a factual, evidentiary basis for his claims.”

In response, White argues there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude

that United falsely reported the information and was attempting to collect a debt in violation of

the FDCPA because “it is established that the [United] account was reported as an ‘open’

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 6 of 9
7

account on several occasions and as late as October 26, 2008". 

United as the “moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material

fact exists[,]” Information Systems and Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224

(11th Cir. 2002), and “the court must satisfy itself that the burden has been satisfactorily

discharged”. Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1268 (11th Cir. 2008). United may “discharge

this initial responsibility by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party's case” Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th

Cir. 2004). Generally, “[i]t is never enough for the movant simply to state that the non-moving

party cannot meet its burden at trial.” Mullins v. Crowell, 228 F.3d 1305, 1313 (11 th Cir. 2000)

(citation omitted). 

United correctly points out that White has not produced any evidence that United

reported the debt to any of the three credit reporting agencies at any time after the debt was paid. 

Instead, White’s argument boils down to the simplistic assertion that since the United Resource

Systems debt appears on the report, United must have reported it. This is not a reasonable

inference from the evidence before the Court. White has not even attempted to present evidence,

from which possible inferences could be made, regarding the method by which

Equifax/Experian/TransUnion derived and processed the information they reported. Without at

least some evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that United caused the reported

debt to continue to appear on the credit report, White cannot prevail on his claims that United

attempted to collect unauthorized amounts or that United furnished false information to the

consumer credit reporting agencies.

B. Count VI pursuant to the FCRA

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 7 of 9
2

 “Below are the results of your request for Equifax to reinvestigate certain elements of

your Equifax credit file. Equifax contacted each source directly and our investigation is now

completed.... We have researched the collection account. Account # D618946N1. The results

are: This item has been deleted from the credit file.” (Doc. 35-5). 

8

White claims that United violated FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation

after receiving White’s dispute of the debt report. However, the evidence establishes that after

White disputed the debt, United wrote a letter to White dated October 25, 2005, confirming that

the account was paid and that the three major credit reporting agencies had been notified. Thus,

there is no basis to claim that the initial investigation was inadequate as it resulted in a favorable

determination for White. 

White continues in his argument that FCRA was violated alleging that, despite United’s

investigation and response to White, United continued to report the account as “open.” 

However, as addressed previously, White has failed to present any evidence that United gave

false or inaccurate information to the credit reporting agencies. Instead, other than the October

25, 2005 letter confirming that the agencies had been notified that the account was paid, the only

evidence of any contact between United and a credit reporting agency indicates that the result

was to delete the contested item.2 Thus, there is no evidence that United provided false or

inaccurate information to a credit reporting agency. 

White also alleges that United “pulled” his credit report for collection purposes in May

2006 and that since the debt had been paid, United had no permissible purpose for obtaining his

credit report and thus violated FCRA. United responds that a different agency “United Recovery

Systems” not United Resource Systems, obtained White’s credit information in May 2006. 

The credit report of March 2007, identifies “United Recovery Syst” a “Collections

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 8 of 9
9

Service” as the entity which “pulled” White’s credit file with Experian on May 15, 2006 (doc.

35-6, p. 19). United has provided an affidavit in support of its argument that it did not pull the

credit report wherein its Legal Manager Dan Marchand states that United Recovery Systems is

based out of Franklin, Tennessee and is not associated or affiliated with United Resources

Systems, Inc. (Doc. 42, Exhibit D). White has not provided the Court with any evidence to the

contrary. Thus, summary judgment is granted in favor of United as to any claim that the FCRA

was violated on basis of the “credit pull” allegedly by “United Resource Syst” on May 15, 2006. 

V. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth herein, summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant

United. Accordingly, White’s claims against United are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2010.

 s / Kristi K DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00162-KD-N Document 46 Filed 01/21/10 Page 9 of 9