Bradshaw v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110781
D. Or.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Bradshaws applied for a home loan modification; BAC and Equifax were settled, but FCRA claims against Trans Union and Experian remained.
- Plaintiffs alleged Trans Union and Experian violated FCRA §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i by reporting and reinvestigating inaccurate credit information.
- The court treated disputed BAC account information as potentially inaccurate and declined to grant summary judgment on accuracy.
- Court found that defendants relied on an automated dispute system and provided incomplete ACDVs, creating factual disputes about reinvestigation reasonableness.
- Damages theories included credit denials, emotional distress, and an Amica insurance quote; some damages were disposed of on summary judgment.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motions for summary judgment filed by Trans Union and Experian.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable procedures under § 1681e(b) | Bradshaw argues CRAs' procedures were unreasonable given misreported BAC data. | Trans Union/Experian contend they reported accurately; legal disputes about modification status are not CRA duties. | Disputes on accuracy and procedure left factual questions for the jury. |
| Reinvestigation duties under § 1681i | Reinvestigation was inadequate because ACDVs lacked detail and relied on automated processes. | CRAs conducted some inquiry; no complete failure shown. | Factual issues preclude summary judgment on reasonableness of reinvestigation. |
| Damages and causation for credit denials | Inaccurate reporting caused credit denials and damages to Bradshaws. | No causal link shown; only Amica quote suggested, not tied to CRA reports. | Triable issue as to whether reports caused damages; genuine disputes remain. |
| Damages for emotional distress | Bradshaws suffered emotional distress from credit denials and stress. | No robust evidence of compensable distress; claims should be limited. | Question for jury; emotional distress damages are possible under FCRA. |
| Punitive damages under § 1681n | Willful misconduct warrants punitive damages for reckless disregard of FCRA duties. | Only standard damages apply unless willfulness shown. | Jury must determine whether conduct was willful or reckless. |
| Forwarding consumer documents to data furnishers | CRA should forward consumer documents to BAC to aid reinvestigation. | Not required by FCRA; documents need not be forwarded. | Court rejected requirement to forward documents; no basis for that duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Information Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (reasonableness of procedures for accuracy is jury questions in most cases)
- Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir. 1991) (inaccuracy requires evidence; liability linked to procedure failures)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (CRAs not obligated to adjudicate legal disputes on debt validity)
- Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 1997) (grave responsibility under § 1681i requires more than parroting data)
- Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (illustrates limits of automated search exemptions in reinvestigation cases)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court 2007) (reckless disregard standard for willful FCRA violations)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (damages considerations and reporting accuracy in FCRA context)
- Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957 (3d Cir. 1996) (causation and damages standards in FCRA cases)