Source: http://www.myfaircredit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=2044
Timestamp: 2019-10-23 20:52:35
Document Index: 271676806

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 2406', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1681']

1681c[a][4]: Waggoner v. Trans Union - Myfaircredit.com
1681c[a][4]: Waggoner v. Trans Union
Postby David A. Szwak » Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:01 pm
Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 22220668
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence on file show that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.
A movant for summary judgment makes such a showing by informing the court of the basis of its motion and by identifying the portions of the record which reveal there are no genuine material fact issues to support the nonmovant's case. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits, if any, must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
*5 Once the movant makes this showing, the nonmovant may not rest on the allegations in her pleadings. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Rather, she must direct the court's attention to evidence in the record sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. To carry this burden, the "opponent must do more than simply show ... some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, the nonmovant must present evidence sufficient to support a resolution of the factual issue in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257.
While all of the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff as the motion's opponent, id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Company, 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)), neither conclusory allegations nor unsubstantiated assertions will satisfy her summary judgment burden. Little v. Liquid Air Corporation, 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc); Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825, 113 S.Ct. 82, 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992). Summary judgment in favor of Trans Union is proper if, after adequate time for discovery, Waggoner fails to establish the existence of an element essential to her case and as to which she will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.
A credit reporting agency which negligently fails to comply with a requirement of the FCRA is liable for any actual damages sustained by a consumer. Cousin v. Trans Union Corporation, 246 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir.) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 951, 122 S.Ct. 346, 151 L.Ed.2d 261 (2001). Specifically, a negligent violation of either FCRA § 1681e(b) (" § 1681e(b)") or FCRA § 1681i(a) (" § 1681i(a)") subjects a credit reporting agency to liability for any actual damages sustained as a result of the violation, costs of court, and reasonable attorney's fees. Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258, 1262 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022, 107 S.Ct. 3267, 97 L.Ed.2d 766, and cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1032, 107 S.Ct. 3276, 97 L.Ed.2d 780 (1987). A willful violation of § 1681e(b) or § 1681i(a) subjects the credit reporting agency to punitive damages. Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681n).
The applicable statute of limitations for a claim under the FCRA is two years. See Whitesides v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., 125 F.Supp.2d 807, 811-12 (W.D.La.2000). Thus, even if the court assumes arguendo that Trans Union submitted credit reports to Waggoner's potential creditors, any FCRA claim which occurred more than two years before July 15, 2002, the date on which Waggoner filed this case, is barred by the statute of limitations. [FN2]
FN2. Waggoner's FCRA claims for the May 1998 purchase of the truck, the June 1998 purchase of the camper, and the April 2000 second mortgage on her home are barred by the statute of limitations. However, even if it is assumed arguendo that these claims are not barred by limitations, Waggoner has presented no evidence that Trans Union provided Waggoner's credit report to prospective creditors in conjunction with any of these transactions.
2. Violation of FCRA § 1681c(a)
Waggoner contends that retention of Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 on her credit report for more than seven years violates FCRA § 1681c(a)(4) and (6). Complaint ¶ 7.03. Waggoner maintains that because the last payment she made on Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 was in December 1994, the seven year limitations period for reporting that account would have expired during December 2001. Id. ¶ 4.01; see also id. ¶ 7.02; Motion at 7. Trans Union, on the other hand, asserts that the seven year period runs from the date in August 1995 on which the account was written off to profit and loss. Motion at 13.
Trans Union asserts that the FCRA allows for profit and loss writeoffs that were submitted to consumer reporting agencies prior to December 29, 1997 to be reported for seven years from the date of the profit and loss writeoff. Id. at 7. [FN3] Since October 1995, Citifinancial has reported to Trans Union that Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 was charged to profit and loss in August 1995. Id. This information was verified by Citifinancial in January 2001 in response to Trans Union's December 2000 credit verification request. Id. Thus, Trans Union argues, it could report adverse information regarding Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 for seven years in accordance with FCRA § 1681c(c)(2). Id. Trans Union reports adverse information for 6 years and 11 months, not seven years as allowed by FCRA. Stockdale Declaration ¶ 18. Under this system, Trans Union automatically removed Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 from Waggoner's credit report on July 1, 2002. Id. ¶ 19.
FN3. As previously noted, Waggoner maintains that the last payment that she made on Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 was in December 1994, so that the seven year limitation period for reporting this account would have run during December 2001. Complaint ¶ 4.01. Thus, Waggoner's attempts to acquire a loan during August 2000 and to obtain a Lowe's Home Improvement credit card during the summer of 2000 and the spring of 2001 would have occurred during the portion of the seven year limitations period upon which the parties agree.
FCRA § 1681c prohibits a credit reporting agency from disclosing adverse accounts "placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years." FCRA § 1681c(a)(4). Congress clarified the FCRA reporting limits by adding a new subsection (c) to § 1681c. See Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub.L. 104-208, § 2406(b), 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).
FCRA § 1681c (emphasis added). Congress intended the more specific FCRA reporting requirements "to apply only to information furnished to a consumer reporting agency more than 455 days after enactment of the Consumer Reporting Reform Act. Information reported to the consumer reporting agency prior to that date will be unaffected." S. REP. NO. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., at 40 (1995) (emphasis added).
The parties do not dispute that Citifinancial charged off Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 to profit and loss in August 1995. This occurred before amendment of the FCRA. Under the FCRA, therefore, the applicable seven year period began to run in August 1995 and ended in August 2002. Accordingly, Trans Union did not, as a matter of law, report obsolete information regarding Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433. The retention of Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 on Waggoner's credit report during her application for a construction loan during March 2002 and a Sam's Club card during June 2002 was reasonable. [FN4] Moreover, Waggoner has presented no evidence that Trans Union published her credit report in conjunction with either transaction. Accordingly, Waggoner has failed to demonstrate that Trans Union violated FCRA § 1681c(a).
3. Violations of FCRA § 1681i(a)
Lastly, Waggoner contends that Trans Union failed to properly investigate inaccuracies on her credit report. In her complaint, Waggoner bases this claim on Trans Union's May 30, 2002 letter to her in which Trans Union refused to reinvestigate the May 22, 2002 dispute. Waggoner Deposition at 267. As evidence that Trans Union acted with malice in its failure to reinvestigate, Waggoner pointed to the fact that Trans Union included the word "frivolous about a company that I had--entrusted in." Id. Thus, the relevant time period for Waggoner's § 1681i(a) claim runs from May 28, 2002, the date on which Waggoner disputed the inclusion of Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 on her credit report, through July 1, 2002, the date on which Trans Union removed the entry. Motion at 29.
In response to Trans Union's motion, Waggoner now maintains that her § 1681i(a) claim is based on Trans Union's failure to verify that Citifinancial account number 6074383624315747 had been assigned to Commercial Credit. Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Trans Union LLC's Motions for Summary Judgment at 12.
*9 FCRA § 1681i(a) provides that when a credit reporting agency receives notification from a consumer, it must reinvestigate the disputed information within a reasonable time and promptly delete credit information that has been found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. Stevenson v. TRW Inc., 987 F.2d 288, 292 (5th Cir.1993).
To establish a claim under FCRA § 1681i(a), Waggoner must establish that (1) she disputed the completeness or accuracy of an item of information contained in her consumer file at Trans Union and notified Trans Union directly of that dispute; (2) Trans Union did not reinvestigate free of charge and either record the current status of the disputed information or delete the item from the file in the manner prescribed by § 1681i(a)(5) within the statutory period; (3) Trans Union's noncompliance was negligent; (4) Waggoner suffered injury; and (5) Waggoner's injury was caused by Trans Union's failure to reinvestigate and record the current status of the disputed information or delete the item from the file. Zala, 2001 WL 210693, at *4. Waggoner never requested that Trans Union include a notation in her credit report that the Citifinancial account number 6074395424352433 was transferred to Commercial Credit. Trans Union LL's Reply to Plaintiff Marla Waggoner's Response to Defendant Trans Union's Motion for Summary Judgment at 3 n. 3. Ultimately, in fact, Citifinancial purchased Commercial Credit. Id . at 3. Waggoner has failed to establish that Trans Union negligently or willfully violated § 1681i(a).
*10 For the reasons stated, Trans Union's motion for summary judgment on Waggoner's claims under the FCRA is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered that Waggoner take nothing against Trans Union on those claims. Waggoner's claims under state law are DISMISSED without prejudice to their prosecution in an appropriate state court.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 22220668 (N.D.Tex.)