Consumer complaint received 2024-08-07
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc. (HI)

XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, Plaintiffs, v. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Experian, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Defendants. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

XX/XX/XXXX. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX for Plaintiffs. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MA, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MA, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MA, for Defendants. 


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER XXXX, Senior District Judge. 


I. INTRODUCTION In this action, the plaintiffs, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " plaintiffs '' ) allege that the defendant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX " XXXX XXXX ) [ XXXX ] violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( " FCRA '' ), see XXXX XXXX. XXXX, et seq., and the Massachusetts XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ), see Mass.Gen.Laws ch. XXXX, XXXX, et seq. In addition, the plaintiffs bring several other statutory and common law claims. Now before the XXXX is the defendant 's motion for summary judgment. 


XXXX. BACKGROUND In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained a {$50000.00} equity loan from XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ). Over the next XXXX years, they attempted to pay down the principal by including additional money with their minimum monthly obligations. But in XXXX, during an attempted refinancing, the plaintiffs discovered that XXXX had not credited their accounts with the extra payments. Subsequently, the plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against XXXX over its allegedly inaccurate accounting methods, and settled the case in XX/XX/XXXX. In consideration of the plaintiffs ' release of their claims, XXXX released them from the remaining {$20000.00} on the loan, and agreed that no derogatory information about them or their claim against the bank would be reported to any credit reporting agency. However, XXXX classified the lost {$20000.00} as a " charge-off, '' and its debt XXXX attempted to collect the unpaid balance approximately XXXX year after settling the case. After the plaintiffs complained to XXXX, the bank issued a letter to the plaintiffs on XX/XX/XXXX stating that it would notify the appropriate credit reporting agencies of its error, and that the comments regarding their account, No. XXXX ( " XXXX account '' ), would thereafter read " paid as agreed. '' After XXXX was acquired by XXXX Bank ( " XXXX '' ) in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX ordered copies of credit reports to confirm that XXXX had removed any derogatory information. Instead, she learned that XXXX was reporting the XXXX XXXX mortgage as a charge-off. In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs contacted XXXX, whose agent XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) acknowledged the error and assured them that the erroneous information would be removed and all credit reporting agencies notified of the error. XXXX forwarded a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) to the plaintiffs, indicating that a request was made to the relevant credit agencies to change the plaintiffs ' account regarding the XXXX mortgage to " paid as agreed. '' It is standard practice at XXXX to send XXXX forms to XXXX major credit reporting agencies : XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX, however, contained inaccurate data regarding the dates of origin and termination of the plaintiffs ' account, as well as its " source code. '' In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs obtained an XXXX credit report and learned that XXXX had not only continued to report their " XXXX account '' as charged-off through XX/XX/XXXX, but also had reported the account a second time under a different account number, No. XXXX ( " XXXX account '' ). In XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs again reported the dispute to XXXX. To correct this problem, XXXX issued XXXX additional UDFs, XXXX in the name of each plaintiff, to XXXX requesting a change in the plaintiffs ' credit histories to read " paid XXXX as agreed. '' Both UDFs issued in XX/XX/XXXX refer only to the plaintiffs ' " XXXX account ''. XXXX, however, has no record of receiving any UDFs from XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received letters indicating that their applications for credit card accounts with XXXX XXXX had been denied. The letters stated the " primary reason '' for the denial as " derogatory information on credit file, '' and named XXXX as the XXXX XXXX XXXX responsible for providing the plaintiffs ' credit history. On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs received an XXXX credit report, reflecting their " XXXX account '' as " transferred or sold '' and reporting their " XXXX account '' as " charged-off. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs sent a letter to XXXX requesting an investigation of the XXXX account. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX reported to the plaintiffs that XXXX had verified the accuracy of the XXXX accounts. The plaintiffs attempted to use these letters from XXXX to notify XXXX of its erroneous reporting. However, XXXX never responded, as it had already sold the account to XXXX XXXX Assets ( " XXXX '' ), a debt collection agency. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, after receiving a letter from XXXX attempting to collect an alleged outstanding balance of more than {$20000.00}, the plaintiffs again ordered automated disclosures of their XXXX files. The credit reports contained XXXX charge-offs : the " XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report, and the " XXXX account '' and " XXXX account '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX report. The plaintiffs subsequently called XXXX directly to dispute these items. After completing its investigation, XXXX deleted the " XXXX accounts '' from both files and verified, through XXXX, the remaining charge-off on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the plaintiffs filed the instant action in the XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, charging XXXX with violations of the FCRA and XXXX, as well as Mass.Gen.Laws ch. XXXX ( " chapter XXXX '' ), and the common law torts of defamation and intentional infliction of XXXX XXXX. The defendant joined in a notice of removal to the federal court, and now moves for summary judgment. 


XXXX. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court will XXXX a motion for summary judgment when " the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. '' Fed.R.Civ.P. XXXX ( c ). " In this context, `genuine ' means that the evidence could resolve XXXX XXXX in favor of the nonmoving party, while `material ' means that the fact has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and emphasis omitted ). The XXXX reviews the record " in the light most flattering to the nonmovant and indulge [ XXXX ] all reasonable inferences in that party 's favor. '' Id. ( quotations and brackets omitted ). 


IV. DISCUSSION A. Fair Credit Reporting Act The plaintiffs claim that XXXX violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information when preparing credit reports. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ( " section XXXX ( b ) '' ) ; XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ( b ). In addition, the plaintiffs allege that XXXX violated the FCRA and XXXX by failing to make reasonable and timely efforts to reinvestigate the accuracy of information XXXX that they disputed. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( " section XXXX '' ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( a ). A negligent violation of either of these sections subjects the credit reporting agency to liability for actual damages sustained as a result of a violation, together with the costs of the action and a reasonable attorney 's fee. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX. A willful violation of either section subjects the agency to liability for punitive damages. XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. [ XXXX ] XXXX. XXXX of Limitations XXXX, XXXX contends that several of the plaintiffs ' claims XXXX be barred by the statute of limitations. The FCRA provides that an action to enforce liability must be brought " within XXXX years from the date on which the liability arises. '' XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Under section XXXX ( b ), " liability arises when the consumer reporting agency issues an inaccurate consumer report. Under [ section XXXX ], liability arises when the consumer reporting agency allegedly violates its duty under the FCRA to reinvestigate. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ( quotations, citations and brackets omitted ). 

The plaintiffs ' complaint was filed on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Thus, any section XXXX ( b ) claims arising from consumer reports which were disclosed to creditors on or before XX/XX/XXXX, are time barred. However, none of the plaintiffs ' section XXXX ( b ) claims are based on credit reports issued prior to that date. In addition, the defendant 's duty pursuant to section XXXX did not arise until it was notified of a dispute by the plaintiffs for the first time in XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. Accordingly, the FCRA 's statute of limitations does not affect the viability of plaintiffs ' claims. 


XXXX. Section XXXX ( b ) Claim Under the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency must follow " reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy '' regarding the information contained in a consumer 's credit report. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). A claim of noncompliance with section XXXX ( b ) " consists of XXXX elements : ( XXXX ) inaccurate information was included in a consumer 's credit report ; ( XXXX ) the inaccuracy was due to defendant 's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ; ( XXXX ) the consumer suffered injury ; and ( XXXX ) the consumer 's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). In this case, XXXX apparently does not dispute that inaccurate information was placed in reports it prepared regarding the plaintiffs ' credit history. However, XXXX does challenge the plaintiffs ' ability to demonstrate the remaining XXXX elements of a section XXXX ( b ) claim. The XXXX will address each disputed element in turn. 


a. Reasonable Procedures XXXX contends that it maintains reasonable procedures as a matter of law because it transcribed, stored, and communicated consumer information from XXXX, a source that it believed to be reliable and credible on its face. In addition, it argues that the plaintiffs can not produce any proof that they caused XXXX to be notified XXXX that their credit history was being erroneously reported. 

Section XXXX ( b ) mandates that agencies follow reasonable procedures in preparing consumer reports but " does not impose strict liability for inaccurate entries in consumer reports ; the preparer is held only to a duty of reasonable care. The exercise of reasonable care is determined by reference to what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citations omitted ). In evaluating whether procedures are reasonable, courts also balance " the potential harm from inaccuracy against the burden of safeguarding against such inaccuracy. '' XXXX XXXX Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). 

The XXXX declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and XXXX. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer 's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX credit reporting agency XXXX XXXX XXXX on court dockets to correctly recite consumer 's credit history absent notice that information is flawed ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX A. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX ). Thus, " [ a ] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer 's credit report is in a very different position than XXXX who has no such notice. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. 

In this case, the exhibits and affidavits show that the plaintiffs caused notices to be sent to XXXX regarding errors in their credit history on at least XXXX occasions before XXXX prepared their credit report for XXXX XXXX. Despite the communication of these notices, XXXX continued to rely exclusively on XXXX 's version of the plaintiffs ' credit history. In the XXXX 's view, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was reasonable for XXXX to rely exclusively on the information provided by XXXX, given that XXXX knew or should have known that this information was unreliable or inaccurate. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant maintained reasonable procedures where plaintiff sent several notices to defendant, but defendant failed to correct reported errors ). 

XXXX contends that the plaintiffs have produced no evidence that it received the correction notices purportedly sent by XXXX and XXXX. However, the plaintiffs have proffered letters from both XXXX and XXXX indicating that they would inform the relevant credit reporting agencies, including XXXX, of the errors regarding the plaintiffs ' XXXX account. In addition, it was standard business practice at XXXX to send XXXX notices to XXXX. Although the affidavit of XXXX XXXX, Senior XXXX in the XXXX XXXX Consumer Affairs for XXXX, states that XXXX has no record of receiving the UDFs sent by Fleet, her statement is silent on whether XXXX XXXX has a record of receiving the XXXX notice. Moreover, even if XXXX had categorically denied ever receiving all three correction statements from XXXX and XXXX, this assertion merely creates a classic dispute of material fact that is susceptible of resolution only by the finder of fact at trial. 

XXXX also suggests that, even if it received the XXXX correction notices, there were errors in the forms that would have made correction of the accounts impossible. For instance, the UDFs sent by XXXX contained incorrect data regarding the plaintiffs ' mortgage account, such as account numbers and the dates of origin and termination. This argument, however, is unpersuasive. Indeed, the UDFs contained the plaintiffs ' correct names, address, and social security account numbers. XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ass'n, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( citing testimony of XXXX of defendant credit reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX social security number XXXX XXXX single most important information in a consumer 's credit file. '' ) In addition, the UDFs contained the name, address, and telephone number of XXXX XXXX, the XXXX employee who sent the UDFs to XXXX, so that any discrepancies in the received data could easily have been clarified by XXXX. Certainly, if the factfinder rejected XXXX 's assertion that it did not receive the UDFs from XXXX in XXXX and XXXX, he or she could reasonably infer that XXXX maintained unreasonable procedures because it failed to reconcile the inconsistent data contained in the UDFs. 


b. Damages XXXX also challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs ' evidence regarding damages on the ground that damages under the FCRA " can not be recovered without a showing of actual loss. '' Defendant 's Motion for XXXX XXXX at XXXX. To the contrary, courts have consistently held that " actual damages XXXX include humiliation and XXXX XXXX  even in the absence of out-of-pocket expenses. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), cert. denied, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ; see XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( XXXX XXXX damages compensable under FCRA ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX & XXXX XXXX ( same ) ; Guimond, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ). Here, the plaintiffs allege that they have suffered XXXX XXXX upon learning that XXXX has reported incorrect credit information to prospective creditors, and resulting from the denial of credit by XXXX XXXX, as well as their lengthy effort to correct their credit reports. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( affirming award of damages for pain and suffering where consumer experienced humiliation resulting from XXXX credit and lengthy dealings with credit reporting agency ) XXXX Thus, the XXXX can not say that the plaintiffs fail to state a genuine issue of material fact on the question of damages. 


c. Causation Furthermore, XXXX contends that the plaintiffs set forth insufficient proof that the plaintiffs ' damages were caused by the inaccurate information in the XXXX credit report. To establish a prima facie case pursuant to section XXXX ( b ), the plaintiff must " produce evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the inaccurate entry was a `substantial factor ' that brought about the denial of credit. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Here, the plaintiffs submit XXXX letters from XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, rejecting their applications for credit, and citing to an XXXX credit report as the " primary reason '' for the denial of credit. In XXXX addition, the parties agree that the XXXX XXXX reports obtained by the plaintiffs in XX/XX/XXXX and in XX/XX/XXXX contained inaccurate, negative information. Therefore, the XXXX concludes that a reasonable jury could infer that inaccurate, negative information contained in the XXXX credit reports constituted a substantial factor in XXXX XXXX 's decision to decline the plaintiffs ' credit applications. 

XXXX 's citation to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), moreover, is unavailing. There, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant in an FCRA dispute on the issue of causation after all of the credit reporting agency 's records were reviewed and there emerged no evidence that any credit report produced by the defendant had ever been used in making an adverse credit decision against the plaintiff. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX. Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs have produced the credit denials issued by XXXX XXXX that specifically reference XXXX credit reports. While the plaintiffs ' case " might have been stronger had [ they ] deposed or taken affidavits of those responsible for the decision, such evidence is not essential to make out a prima facie case pursuant to [ section XXXX ( b ) ]. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. 


XXXX. Section XXXX Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) of the FCRA provides, in pertinent part, that where a consumer notifies a credit reporting agency that information contained in his or her report XXXX be inaccurate, " the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file .... '' XXXX argues that the statute requires a credit reporting agency only to confirm the accuracy of the information with the original source of information, but imposes no mandate on the agency to take additional steps to confirm the accuracy of the disputed information. However, the majority of courts hold that section XXXX ( a ) requires a credit reporting agency, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information. See, e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. " Whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend, in part, on whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source XXXX be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Moreover, the courts have determined in this context that " [ XXXX ] hether a reasonable investigation has been conducted is generally a question for the jury. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). 

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the XXXX concludes that the plaintiffs ' section XXXX claim survives XXXX 's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs submit copies of XXXX separate written communications to XXXX in which they dispute the accuracy of their credit history. In addition, XXXX of these letters includes a copy of the XXXX XXXX mortgage. Despite the plaintiffs ' repeated complaints, XXXX continued to rely solely upon the information provided by XXXX when it investigated the plaintiffs ' complaints in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether XXXX fulfilled its duty to reinvestigate pursuant to section XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( denying defendant 's motion for summary judgment in claim for failure to reinvestigate where it merely verified negative information with XXXX credit grantors despite consumer 's warning that information was inaccurate ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( same ) ; cf. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) ( denying defendant 's motion for new trial for failure to reinvestigate where consumer informed reporting agency of his personal dispute with credit grantor, yet reporting agency relied solely on credit grantor for information during investigation ), cert. denied, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and cert. denied sub nom. Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). " In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. 


XXXX. Punitive Damages for XXXX Violations XXXX, XXXX moves for summary judgment with regard to the plaintiffs ' claim under section XXXX, which provides for civil liability for willful noncompliance with the FCRA. " To be found in willful noncompliance, a defendant must have knowingly committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of others. '' XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( quotation omitted ). " Generally, courts have allowed a willful noncompliance claim to proceed where a defendant 's conduct involves willful misrepresentations or concealments. In those cases, a consumer reporting agency has typically misrepresented or concealed some or all of a credit report from a consumer. '' Cousin, XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( citation omitted ). In addition, the XXXX XXXX held that a plaintiff XXXX present a section XXXX claim to the jury if she can show that a credit reporting agency adopted a reinvestigation policy with knowledge that the policy violates consumer rights under the FCRA, or with reckless disregard to whether its policy violated those rights. XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. 

In the XXXX 's view, the plaintiffs fail to show sufficient evidence of willful noncompliance with the FCRA to survive this motion for summary judgment. There is no evidence to support a claim that XXXX willfully misrepresented or concealed any part of a credit report from the plaintiffs. Moreover, the plaintiffs do not allege that XXXX adopted its reinvestigation policies with knowledge, or reckless disregard, as to whether they contravened rights of consumers under the FCRA. Finally, the plaintiffs ' contention that XXXX failed to correct an error in their credit reports after receiving several notices does not constitute evidence of a willful violation. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX. In the absence of any evidence that XXXX acted to intentionally harm the plaintiffs, summary judgment must be granted as to this claim. 


B. XXXX XXXX XXXX also contends that summary judgment must be granted as to the plaintiffs ' claim pursuant to XXXX. Laws ch. XXXX ( " chapter XXXX '' ). The XXXX agrees. " Where injury is incurred because of conduct which comprises the elements of any... statutory... cause of action, and which is also a violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, recovery of cumulative damages under multiple counts XXXX not be allowed. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). In other words, " where the same acts cause the same injury under more than XXXX theory ... duplicative damage recovery will not be permitted. '' Id. Here, the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim is premised solely upon conduct by XXXX that also forms the basis for the plaintiffs ' FCRA claims. Complaint at XXXX XXXX. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted as to the plaintiffs ' Chapter XXXX claim. 


XXXX XXXX The FCRA preempts certain state law privacy causes of action, such as defamation. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( " section XXXX ( XXXX ) '' ), " [ XXXX ] xcept as provided in sections [ XXXX and XXXX ], no consumer XXXX bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation... except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer. '' Section XXXX ( XXXX ) has been interpreted " to provide qualified immunity to consumer reporting agencies except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure. '' XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( D.D.C. XXXX ). 


A statement is made with malice if the speaker made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Reckless disregard requires evidence that the speaker entertained actual doubt about the truth of the statement. 
XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX at XXXX ( quotations and citations omitted ). Here, the plaintiffs fail to adduce any evidence showing that XXXX knew the plaintiffs ' credit history it furnished was false or that it entertained actual doubt regarding the veracity of such information. Thus, the plaintiffs ' defamation claim is preempted by the FCRA. 


XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXXinally, XXXX moves for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. To prevail on a such a claim, the plaintiffs must establish : ( XXXX ) that the defendant intended to inflict XXXX XXXX, or knew or should have known that XXXX XXXX was the likely result of his conduct ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's conduct was extreme and outrageous ; ( XXXX ) the defendant 's actions caused the plaintiff 's XXXX; and ( XXXX ) the XXXX XXXX suffered by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). There is no evidence in this case that XXXX acted with the intention to inflict XXXX XXXX. See id. ( claim will fail even if defendant 's conduct is characterized by " malice or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. '' ) In addition, there is no evidence that XXXX 's conduct was extreme and outrageous. See id. ( claim can not be " predicated on mere insults, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities '' ). Accordingly, the XXXX grants XXXX 's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs ' claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. 


V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, XXXX 's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims for : ( XXXX ) willful violations of the FCRA and XXXX ; ( XXXX ) violation of Chapter XXXX ( Count XXXX ) ; ( XXXX ) defamation ( Count XV ) ; and ( XXXX ) intentional infliction of emotional distress ( Count XXXX ). However, XXXX 's motion is DENIED with regard to the plaintiffs ' claims that XXXX breached its duties to maintain reasonable procedures and to reinvestigate under the FCRA ( Count XXXX ) and XXXX ( Count XXXX ). 

It is So Ordered. 

NOTES [ XXXX ] The claims against the other defendants, i.e., XXXX, Experian, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have been dismissed. 

[ XXXX ] In its motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs ' credit reporting act claims, XXXX observes that the FCRA and XXXX are essentially identical, and makes its argument for dismissal of all credit reporting act claims based only upon the federal statute. Accordingly, the XXXX will analyze XXXX 's motion under the federal law. 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. 

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the XXXX Privacy Policy and Terms of XXXX apply. 

Not Just Another AI XXXX XXXX. XXXX ther XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXr. Learn More. 

XXXX XXXX Summaries in Your Inbox Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 

Our Suggestions : Supreme Court XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Supreme Court XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX For All XX/XX/XXXX The Secret to Career Transitions That Are Epic [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX AI : Legal Developments, Risks & Benefits [ XXXX ] Learn More XX/XX/XXXX Expert Witnesses and Artificial Intelligence [ XXXX ] Learn More XXXX Webinars are open to all, lawyers and non-lawyers. XXXX, please visit individual webinar pages for more information about XXXX accreditation. 
Search this Case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX! News Ask a XXXX XXXX : Please ask your question here and get free answers from lawyers. 
Add XXXX Question Find a Lawyer Legal Issue or Lawyer Name XXXX Lawyers - Get Listed Now! 
Get a free directory profile listing Sponsored Listings XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Business Law, Consumer Law, Employment Law, Environmental Law, Legal Malpractice, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Products Liability, Real Estate Law Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, XXXX & XXXX XXXX Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability Website Email Profile XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, want to be a XXXX XXXX XXXX too? Learn more Profile picture of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX Military Law, Criminal Law Website Email Profile