Bruner v. Midland Funding LLC, 5:16-cv-01371

Plaintiff Dannielle Bruner discovered a $400 charge-off to Credit One Bank on her credit reports dated June 21, 2016 and alleges she never had an account with Credit One (identity theft).
On June 22, 2016 she disputed the item with the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion). She later sent written disputes to Midland and Credit One (August 2, 2016).
Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. (collectively "Midland") are furnishers and later sent debt collection letters to Plaintiff (July 6, 2016). Plaintiff alleges Midland verified the debt to the CRAs and failed to investigate or correct the reporting.
Plaintiff pleaded multiple FCRA claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(E) (separate counts as to unnamed CRA, Equifax, Experian) and an FDCPA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
Midland moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead facts plausibly showing Midland violated the listed statutory duties; Plaintiff sought leave to amend if deficiencies existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Midland plausibly failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and report results (FCRA §1681s‑2(b)(1)(A)‑(C))	Midland did not reasonably investigate or review CRA-supplied dispute information and did not report true results to CRAs	Plaintiff pleads only statutory conclusions without factual detail about what CRAs provided or what Midland did	Denied as to A‑C: Court finds pleading minimally sufficient to state plausible claims for A‑C
Whether Midland violated duties to notify other CRAs or to modify/delete when information was inaccurate or unverifiable (FCRA §1681s‑2(b)(1)(D)‑(E))	Midland failed to report to all CRAs and lacked procedures to modify/delete or block reporting	Plaintiff fails to allege Midland actually found information inaccurate or unverifiable but failed to take required corrective steps	Granted as to D‑E: Claims dismissed for failure to allege that investigation found inaccuracy or unverifiability
Whether Midland violated FDCPA §1692g(b) by continuing collection after Plaintiff’s dispute	Midland continued collection activity after receiving a timely written dispute and failed to verify/cease collection	Complaint lacks factual allegations that Midland engaged in collection activity after receiving the dispute letter	Granted (dismissed) with leave to amend: Plaintiff failed to plead conduct showing post‑dispute collection

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (pleading examples and Rule 8 notice pleading)
Sanders v. Mountain America Federal Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138 (furnisher duties under §1681s‑2(b) triggered by CRA notice)
Maiteki v. Marten Transport Ltd., 828 F.3d 1272 (reasonableness of furnisher investigation depends on information provided by CRA)
Pinson v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., [citation="316 F. App'x 744"] (notice directly from consumer does not trigger §1681s‑2(b) duties)