Collins v. Trans Union, LLC
668 F. App'x 345
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Collins sued Trans Union and Experian under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), and common-law fraud/misrepresentation, claiming inaccurate credit reporting and fraudulent inducement to settle an earlier (2009) FCRA suit.
- In 2009 Collins settled two prior suits with releases covering all claims arising on or before the settlement dates; the settlement agreements included express disclaimers that Collins did not rely on any statements by Defendants.
- Collins’ present complaint included allegations predating 2009 (barred by the releases) and five post-2009 allegedly inaccurate credit items (two civil judgments, a foreclosure, an unpaid account balance, and a personal debt).
- Defendants conceded the post-2009 items were not release-barred; the magistrate judge found those items were accurately reported and Collins did not challenge that finding on appeal.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims, denied Collins’ motions to exclude evidence, and denied his requests for additional time to respond to summary-judgment motions; Collins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of 2009 settlement releases on common-law fraud/misrepresentation claims | Releases resulted from fraudulent inducement; releases should not bar fraud claims | Releases are valid and include express disclaimers of reliance, so fraud claims fail for lack of reliance | Release language disclaiming reliance bars fraud/misrepresentation claims requiring reliance |
| FCRA claims based on pre-2009 conduct | Pre-2009 false reporting claims remain actionable | Pre-2009 claims are barred by the 2009 releases | Pre-2009 FCRA claims barred by valid releases |
| FCRA claims based on post-2009 entries | Post-2009 entries (five items) are inaccurate and support liability | Post-2009 entries are accurate; not release-barred | Magistrate found entries accurate; Collins did not challenge that finding; summary judgment for Defendants affirmed |
| CCPA public-impact element | Collins’ allegations show consumer-protecting public impact | Collins failed to show actions significantly impacted the public as consumers | Collins failed to show the required public impact; CCPA claim dismissed |
| Denial of motions to exclude evidence (discovery and deposition issues) | Defendants failed to disclose emails/personnel; discovery responses inadequate; deposition testimony should be excluded | Any disclosure failures did not affect the outcome; Collins had opportunity to cross-examine | District court did not abuse discretion; exclusion not warranted and no impact on disposition |
| Denial of requests for additional time to respond to summary judgment | Denials prevented Collins from presenting evidence that would defeat summary judgment | Court denied extensions for scheduling reasons; Collins suffered no material prejudice | Denials reviewed for abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown, so no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998) (CCPA requires showing of significant public impact on consumers)
- Buchanan v. Sherrill, 51 F.3d 227 (10th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for denial of time extensions)
- United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 1998) (continuance review; prejudice required to show abuse of discretion)
- In re Gold Res. Corp. Sec. Litig., 776 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2015) (appellate courts generally refuse to consider arguments raised first in a reply brief)