- Plaintiff's FCRA Complaint Against a Furnisher is Dismissed for Failing to Allege Notice of a Dispute From a CRA
- April 27, 2010 | Author: Paul W. Sheldon
- Law Firm: Strasburger & Price, LLP - Frisco Office
Dan Quale v. Unifund CCR Partners, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31639 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2010)
Facts: Plaintiff sued Unifund as a “third party debt collector” and National City Bank as a “credit lender” alleging violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the FCRA. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant National City Bank (1) failed to verify Plaintiff’s debt and reported erroneous information about the debt to Experian and Innovis and (2) failed to notify Experian and Innovis that the debt was in dispute. National City Bank filed its motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)6, claiming (1) there is no private right of action for alleged violations under § 1681s-2(a) and (2) a furnisher can only liable under § 1681s-2(b) when notified by a CRA of a disputed debt. The Court agreed.
- Furnisher Duties. Although there exists a furnisher obligation under § 1681s-2(a) to respond to disputes upon direct notice by the consumer, there is no private right of action for such violations. Enforcement of furnisher duties under this section is limited to federal and state agencies and officials.
- Furnisher Duties. A furnisher’s investigative duties described in § 1681s-2(b) are only triggered when such disputes are reported to the furnisher by a CRA. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to allege that Defendant National City Bank received notice of the dispute from a consumer reporting agency, the Complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted.