Drew v. Equifax Information Services, LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16378
9th Cir.2012Background
- Drew, leukemia patient and cancer survivor, becomes victim of identity theft by a hospital worker in Seattle.
- Fraudulent credit accounts are opened in Drew’s name; Drew disputes them and seeks help from banks and CRAs.
- Chase Bank and FIA Card Services are the principal defendants; other banks/CRAs are involved per communications.
- Chase receives a January 2004 TransUnion block/ dispute notification and investigates; Chase later reports the account as lost or stolen.
- FIA’s involvement begins January 2004; FIA verifies and reports the disputed account, continuing to report into 2005–2008.
- District court granted summary judgment for Chase on FCRA claims and dismissed FIA on statute of limitations grounds; Drew appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did TransUnion’s dispute notification trigger Chase’s FCRA duties? | Drew argues notice triggered §1681s-2(b) duties. | Chase contends no triggering notice when notified via CRA, or improper wording. | TransUnion’s notice triggered Chase’s duties under FCRA. |
| Whether Chase’s reporting as lost or stolen and misreporting the thief’s address violated the FCRA | Reporting was incomplete/inaccurate and addressed the thief’s address as Drew’s. | Chase conducted a reasonable investigation and reporting was not conclusively improper. | Material issues of fact remain; summary judgment reversed on these aspects. |
| Whether FIA’s conduct was time-barred by the statute of limitations | Drew argues continued violations were timely due to discovery dates; tolling considerations apply. | FIA contends limitations ran prior to discovery; timely as a matter of law. | District court erred; genuine disputes about discovery/awareness prevented bar. |
| Whether the district court should have allowed amendment to reinstate California law claims | Drew sought to amend to reinstate state claims after Gorman guidance. | Judge acted within discretion to deny amendment. | No abuse of discretion; leave to amend affirmed as to California law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (disputes arising from CRA notices trigger furnisher duties; reasonableness standard for investigations)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (patently incorrect or misleading reporting can violate §1681s-2(b))
- Gorman, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009), 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (see above (Gorman))
- Koropoulos v. The Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (reporting technically untrue information can violate duties under §1681e)
- Vander v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 268 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment in FCRA context)