Davenport v. Sallie Mae, Inc.
124 F. Supp. 3d 574
D. Maryland2015Background
- In 2006 Davenport obtained a Federal PLUS loan via Navient (then Sallie Mae) to pay for his daughter’s college; dispute arose over when repayment would begin (Davenport claimed repayment deferred until six months after daughter’s graduation; Navient relied on Note and payment schedule).
- Navient granted several forbearances (2007–2010) and in April 2010 altered account coding (removed a deferment), concluded Davenport was delinquent as of January 2010, and reported delinquency to credit reporting agencies on April 30, 2010.
- Davenport disputed the CRA reports; CRAs sent ACDVs to Navient in August and October 2010; Navient verified its reporting and CRAs closed their investigations. Navient later applied a retroactive forbearance but did not remove the earlier delinquency reports.
- Davenport sued alleging negligent and willful FCRA violations, multiple state common-law torts (defamation, interference, injurious falsehood, conspiracy, IIED), and breach of contract; some statutory claims previously dismissed; Navient moved for summary judgment.
- The court found genuine factual dispute over whether Navient’s investigation was reasonable but held Davenport failed to prove actual damages from Navient’s alleged FCRA investigation failures and that Navient’s conduct was at most negligent (not willful); court granted summary judgment on all claims and dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent violation of FCRA (§1681s-2(b)) | Davenport: Navient reported inaccurate delinquency and failed to reasonably investigate CRA disputes | Navient: report was accurate or, if not, it reasonably investigated using its records | Court: dispute exists over reasonableness of investigation but Davenport failed to prove "actual damages" from the post-dispute investigation—summary judgment for Navient on negligent FCRA claim |
| Willful violation of FCRA (§1681n) | Davenport: Navient knowingly disregarded rights by reporting and re-reporting delinquency | Navient: conduct was negligent, not knowing or intentional | Court: record shows at most negligence; no willfulness; summary judgment for Navient |
| State common-law torts (defamation, interference, injurious falsehood, conspiracy, IIED) | Davenport: Navient’s reporting was malicious and caused business/credit harm and emotional distress | Navient: lacked requisite malice/intent; many claims time-barred or preempted; damages speculative | Court: conduct did not meet malice/willfulness; defamation time-barred; damages speculative—summary judgment for Navient |
| Breach of contract (oral modification/forbearance) | Davenport: Navient orally modified repayment schedule and then accelerated/reported breach | Navient: any forbearance was gratuitous, unsupported by consideration, not an enforceable modification | Court: no enforceable modification and no compensable breach occurred (obligation performance/retroactive forbearance restored status) — summary judgment for Navient |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (establishes standard for genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment)
- Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, 346 F.3d 514 (party opposing summary judgment must produce specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (discusses "actual damages" gatekeeping to prevent nominal awards for trivial harm)
- Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (caution against speculative emotional-distress claims under credit-reporting statutes)
- Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (defines willful violation standard under FCRA)