Hill v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 974 F. Supp. 2d 865

Hill, proceeding pro se, sues Equifax under the FCRA and related North Carolina statutes; the court considers motions for partial judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment.
Plaintiff alleges numerous FCRA violations (e.g., 1681b, 1681e(b), 1681i(a), 1681c-1, 1681g, 1681c) based on errors and unresolved disputes in his credit report.
Equifax contends its procedures were reasonable and that Hill lacks evidence of actual damages or punitive damages to create a triable issue.
The court converts the Rule 12(c) motion to a summary judgment motion and relies on evidence submitted by both sides, including Hill’s sworn filings, while noting admissibility constraints under Rule 56.
The court liberally treats Hill’s pro se pleadings but excludes facts unsupported by admissible evidence or not causally connected to the alleged FCRA violations.
Material disputes center on (a) Port Barre address history, (b) Medclear/NCO collection reporting and fraud alerts, (c) Bank of America/Discover/Santander account disputes, and (d) alleged website misrepresentations and a Score Watch fees issue; the court finds these insufficient to create a genuine issue for trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Willful FCRA violations under 1681n	Hill asserts willful, reckless disregard of rights by Equifax.	Equifax argues no willful violation; procedures were reasonable and evidence insufficient for willfulness.	No willful violation; summary judgment for Equifax
Preemption of state-law claims under 1681h(e)	State-law claims survive alongside FCRA claims.	State-law claims preempted unless malice/willful injury shown.	State-law claims preempted; dismissed
Sufficiency of evidence for malice/willful intent	Evidence shows malice in handling disclosures and reporting.	No evidence of malice; sworn testimony supports proper procedures.	No admissible evidence of malice; insufficient for willfulness
Admissibility and consideration of pro se evidence	Submitted sworn affidavits and exhibits should be considered.	Unsutured or unauthenticated materials should not be considered on summary judgment.	Court converts to summary judgment using admissible evidence; relies on sworn, properly supported materials

Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008) (willful FCRA violations can be shown by evidence of ongoing dispute not reflected in CRA reports)
Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (willfulness requires evidence of conscious disregard; multiple errors alone insufficient)
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court 2007) (defines willful violation standard for FCRA as reckless disregard of the law)
Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2001) (willfulness standard for FCRA claims requires knowing and intentional act or reckless disregard)
Ross v. F.D.I.C., 625 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2010) (malice assessment for state-law preemption under FCRA involves inquiry into ill-will or reckless disregard)
Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (illustrates evidence gaps for willfulness; supports dismissal when malice not shown)
Llewellyn v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc., 711 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2013) (discusses similar willfulness standard under 1681n in a different circuit)