Grigoryan v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181916
| C.D. Cal. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Gevork Grigoryan sued Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union under the FCRA and California CCRAA alleging inaccurate credit reporting and deficient reinvestigations for five trade lines: two BOA accounts (mortgage and HELOC) and three collection accounts (CBA, Sequoia, CMI).
- Grigoryan sent disputes and documents (including BOA letters and payment receipts) starting in 2010–2012; furnishers (primarily BOA) generally responded to ACDVs verifying their reports or submitting corrections.
- Many alleged errors (BOA mortgage and CBA) predated Oct. 8, 2011; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting statute-of-limitations and merits defenses.
- Key disputed merits issues: whether reported items were factually inaccurate (patent errors versus legal defenses), whether CRAs reasonably relied on furnishers, and whether reinvestigations (often limited to automated ACDV responses) were reasonable and/or willful.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on (a) time-barred claims (BOA mortgage, CBA) and (b) claims under §1681e(b)/§1785.14(b) because CRAs reasonably relied on facially credible furnishers.
- The court denied summary judgment on §1681i/§1785.16 reinvestigation claims for the BOA HELOC (all CRAs) and the CMI account (Trans Union), finding triable issues about reinvestigation adequacy, emotional-distress damages (post-accrual), and willfulness; Trans Union’s Sequoia claim was dismissed because the account was deleted within the statutory reinvestigation period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations | Grigoryan argued timely claims for recently reported inaccuracies (post-Oct. 8, 2011). | Defendants argued many claims accrued earlier and are time-barred under FCRA/CCRAA limitations and repose. | Court: Claims based on reports and reinvestigations before Oct. 8, 2011 (BOA mortgage, CBA) are time-barred; later claims survive. |
| Accuracy of reports under §1681e(b)/§1785.14(b) | Grigoryan contends CRAs reported patently incorrect or misleading information (HELOC late status; Sequoia/CMI not his). | Defendants: CRAs merely reported information from reputable furnishers and may rely on facially credible data. | Court: Although material factual disputes exist about HELOC and ownership of Sequoia/CMI, CRAs’ initial reliance on reputable furnishers precludes §1681e(b)/§1785.14(b) liability; summary judgment for defendants on these claims. |
| Reinvestigation adequacy under §1681i/§1785.16 | Grigoryan says CRAs conducted perfunctory ACDV-only reinvestigations and ignored his documentary evidence (payment receipts), making reinvestigations unreasonable. | Defendants assert they promptly investigated via ACDVs and relied on furnisher verifications; some items were corrected by furnishers. | Court: Denied summary judgment as to HELOC (all CRAs) and CMI (Trans Union) — triable issues exist whether ACDV-only reinvestigations were reasonable and whether evidence was forwarded/considered; Sequoia claim dismissed because Trans Union removed it within 30 days. |
| Damages & causation (business and emotional) | Seeks business losses (real-estate deals/franchise) and emotional distress from ongoing reporting struggle. | Defendants: Business losses are not recoverable under FCRA/CCRAA and plaintiff cannot show causation; emotional damages require objective proof or were caused pre-accrual. | Court: Summary judgment for defendants on business-related damages (not recoverable and no proximate causation). Emotional-distress damages survive only to the extent they relate to post-accrual distress from efforts to correct reports; damages premised on pre-accrual credit denials/suspensions are dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 690 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.) (discovery rule and burden on defendant to show a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered violation)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes patent inaccuracies from legal defenses; CRAs not courts and need not adjudicate debt validity)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (U.S.) (willfulness under FCRA = reckless disregard standard)
- Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir.) (prima facie §1681e(b) requires showing a report contained inaccurate information)
- Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 (3d Cir.) (reinvestigation must be more than parroting furnisher information)
- Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (discusses damages and proof for FCRA claims)
- Mone v. Dranow, 945 F.2d 306 (9th Cir.) (FCRA does not cover reports used for business/commercial purposes)
- DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.) (CRAs are not the forum to adjudicate legal validity of debts)