• Court Grants Summary Judgment against Consumer Because He Failed To Present Any Evidence That Furnisher Gave False or Inaccurate Information to CRAs
  • February 9, 2010 | Author: Martin Thornthwaite
  • Law Firm: Strasburger & Price, LLP - Frisco Office
  • White v. Global Payments, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4839 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 21, 2010)

    Facts: Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the FCRA. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed Defendant United Resource Systems, Inc. (“United”) violated the FDCPA and/or the FCRA by attempting to collect unauthorized amounts, by reporting that Plaintiff owed a debt to consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) when a reasonable investigation would have shown that the debt was paid, and by accessing Plaintiff’s consumer report without a permissible purpose. The Court granted United’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.

    • Reinvestigation. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1681s-2(b) claim because United confirmed in a letter that the disputed account was paid and that the CRAs would be notified. The fact that the account still reported as “open” on a tri-merge credit file was not evidence that United gave false or inaccurate information to the CRAs. Further, a letter from one of the CRAs indicated that the results of its reinvestigation ended in the deletion of the account. 
    • Permissible Purpose. Plaintiff’s § 1681b(a) claim also failed because United provided an affidavit that it did not pull Plaintiff’s credit report and that the alleged impermissible inquiry on Plaintiff’s credit report was not associated or affiliated with United but instead was from an unrelated company with a similar name. Plaintiff provided no evidence to the contrary, and the Court granted summary judgment.