John Tauro v. Capital One Financial Corp
684 F. App'x 240
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Tauro sued Capital One entities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) alleging failures to (a) conduct reasonable investigations of disputes (§1681s-2(b)), (b) furnish accurate information (§1681s-2(a)(2)), and (c) report correct date of delinquency (§1681s-2(a)(5)(A)).
- Tauro’s disputed account originated with HSBC (opened 2006, defaulted 2009, settled 2009); Capital One acquired HSBC’s domestic credit card accounts in 2012 and reported the account as settled to Experian and TransUnion.
- Tauro notified the CRAs that the account was inaccurate or not his; the CRAs forwarded those disputes to Capital One Bank, which compared its internal records to CRA data and found no discrepancies, then reported results back to the CRAs.
- Magistrate Judge found no private right to enforce §1681s-2(a) and that Tauro failed to show Capital One’s investigations were unreasonable; District Court adopted the R&R and granted Capital One summary judgment; Tauro appealed pro se.
- On appeal the Third Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: dismissed private claims under §1681s-2(a) and held Tauro did not carry his burden to show the §1681s-2(b) investigations were unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private litigant may enforce duties in §1681s-2(a) (furnisher accuracy duties) | Tauro argued Capital One failed to correct and report accurate info and date of delinquency | Capital One argued §1681s-2(a) is not privately enforceable and only gov't officials may enforce it | Court: No private right under §1681s-2(a); summary judgment for Capital One on those claims |
| Whether Capital One violated §1681s-2(b) by failing to conduct reasonable investigation of CRA-forwarded disputes | Tauro argued investigations were inadequate and records were unreliable | Capital One argued it compared CRA data with its internal records and found no inaccuracies; some disputes were vague | Court: Tauro failed to produce evidence the investigations were unreasonable or that reported information was inaccurate; summary judgment for Capital One |
| Whether alleged minor discrepancies (different PO boxes, removal dates) or chain-of-title (HSBC sale) rendered investigations unreasonable | Tauro highlighted inconsistencies and challenged account transfer legitimacy | Capital One showed multiple PO boxes and consistent date-of-first-delinquency reporting; transfer of accounts irrelevant to investigation reasonableness | Court: Discrepancies immaterial; transfer issue irrelevant; did not defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuges v. Sw. Fin. Servs., Ltd., 707 F.3d 241 (3d Cir.) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355 (3d Cir.) (private right of action exists under §1681s-2(b) but not §1681s-2(a))
- Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir.) (no private enforcement of §1681s-2(a); assessing reasonableness of furnisher procedures)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir.) (FCRA purpose and balancing potential harm from inaccuracy against burden of safeguards)
- Chiang v. Verizon N. Eng. Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to show investigation was unreasonable)
- Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.) (conclusory assertions/speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)