David Mack v. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6766
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff David Mack, pro se, sued Equable Ascent Financial (successor to Hilco) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging Hilco obtained his TransUnion credit report in February 2009 without permissible purpose or his consent.
- Mack claimed damages of $1,000 plus fees and costs and filed suit on December 2, 2011.
- Equable moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred by the two-year limitations period in 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(1).
- Equable relied on Mack’s discovery responses admitting he obtained his TransUnion report in May 2009, and that he discovered the alleged violation when he reviewed that report; Mack contended he only discovered the legal violation after researching the FCRA in April 2011.
- The magistrate judge granted summary judgment, concluding Mack’s suit was time-barred because he discovered the relevant facts (the report and its recipient) in May 2009 and did not file within two years.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the limitations period runs from discovery of the facts giving rise to the claim, not from discovery that those facts constitute a legal violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 2-year FCRA limitations period begin under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(1)? | Mack: "Discovery" means discovery of the legal violation — i.e., only after researching the statute (April 2011). | Equable: Limitations begins when plaintiff discovered the facts giving rise to the claim (May 2009 report). | Court: Begins when plaintiff discovered the facts that give rise to the claim (May 2009); Hyde precedent and discovery-rule doctrine apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2010) (nonmovant’s burden to produce specific evidence)
- Hyde v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank in Jefferson Parish, 861 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1988) (limitations period begins when plaintiff discovers issuance of report or its harms)
- Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (U.S. 2010) (discovery rule: limitations starts when claimant discovers facts giving rise to claim)
- TIG Ins. Co. v. Aon Re, Inc., 521 F.3d 351 (5th Cir. 2008) (discovery-rule principles)
- In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999) (discovery-rule principles)