Boydstun v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n ND
187 F. Supp. 3d 1213
D. Or.2016Background
- Plaintiff Robert Boydstun sued under the FCRA after U.S. Bank reported an outstanding balance from a business credit card on his personal credit report.
- Boydstun was sole shareholder of Miranda Homes, a business he funded personally; Miranda applied for financing to buy a forklift and was denied after lenders cited "derogatory information" on Boydstun’s credit report.
- Boydstun thereafter loaned Miranda Homes an additional $751,000 rather than seek outside financing; Miranda later failed and did not repay those loans.
- Boydstun disclosed an expert (Greg Mettler) who opined the $751,000 loan was the economic damage caused by the forklift credit denial.
- Defendants moved to exclude the expert as irrelevant (and attacked reliability), arguing the FCRA does not cover credit reports used for business/commercial purposes.
- The court granted the motion, holding FCRA protections do not extend to reports used for a business purpose and excluding evidence of damages tied to the forklift transaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCRA applies where a consumer's credit report is used in a business/commercial transaction | Boydstun contends the negative report injured his ability to obtain financing and produced recoverable damages (citing Dennis for business-start damages) | Defendants argue FCRA protects only consumer (personal) uses, not reports used for business/commercial purposes, so damages from the forklift denial are not recoverable | Court held FCRA does not cover reports used for a business purpose; damages from the forklift transaction are excluded |
| Admissibility of expert Mettler’s opinion on $751,000 damages | Mettler ties the loaned $751,000 to the denied financing and offers an economic-damage calculation | Defendants contend the opinion is irrelevant (and attack reliability) because the underlying claim is not cognizable under FCRA | Because the court found the theory of recovery legally inapplicable, Mettler’s testimony was excluded as irrelevant (court did not decide reliability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mone v. Dranow, 945 F.2d 306 (9th Cir. 1991) (FCRA does not reach reports used for commercial purposes)
- Ippolito v. WNS, Inc., 864 F.2d 440 (7th Cir. 1988) (same interpretation excluding business/commercial reports)
- Matthews v. Worthen Bank & Trust Co., 741 F.2d 217 (8th Cir. 1984) (FCRA not intended to cover business reports)
- Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishable: plaintiff had not yet formed a business and was denied credit to start a business)
- Grigoryan v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (credit reports used to secure business financing are not consumer reports under FCRA)
- Lucchesi v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 226 F.R.D. 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (FCRA does not apply to reports created for use in connection with business transactions)