524 F. App'x 268
7th Cir.2013Background
- Johnson is ordered to pay $888/month in child support after a 2004 divorce.
- HFS reports Johnson is significantly past due on child support and notifies consumer reporting agencies.
- Credit reporting agencies include the past-due amount in Johnson's reports and verify it when challenged.
- Johnson sues in federal court alleging FCRA violations and also asserts state-law claims.
- District court grants summary judgment for the agencies, ruling no inaccuracy evidence was shown and preemption of state-law claims; appeals follow.
- On appeal, Johnson argues various theories, but the key issue remains absence of evidence of inaccurate reporting; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRAs violated the FCRA by reporting past-due child support based on HFS data | Johnson claims the reports relied on administrative data and were inaccurate | CRAs acted within FCRA when reporting and verifying information from HFS | No; no evidence of inaccuracy; reporting complied with the FCRA. |
| Whether Johnson proved a material inaccuracy or misstatement to support an unreasonable reinvestigation | Johnson asserts inaccuracies exist in the HFS-sourced data | Defendants properly reinvestigated and verified information | No; absence of competent evidence of inaccuracy defeats §1681e(b) and §1681i claims. |
| Whether state-law claims are preempted by the FCRA | Johnson seeks relief under Illinois law independent of FCRA | FCRA preempts state-law claims absent malice/willful intent | Yes; state-law claims preempted. |
| Whether district court properly denied amendments and Seventh Amendment concerns | Johnson sought to add §1983 and other claims | Amendments futile and state actors; preemption applies | No reversible error; amendments would be futile; Seventh Amendment not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sarver v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 390 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004) (requires showing inaccuracy to prove violation of §1681e(b))
- Henson v. CSC Credit Services, 29 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1994) (reinvestigation standards for FCRA claims)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (reinvestigation and accuracy standards under FCRA)
- Wantz v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 386 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2004) (without incorrect information, reinvestigation claim fails)
- Purcell v. Bank of America, 659 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2011) (FCRA preemption of state-law claims; malice requirement)
- Ross v. F.D.I.C., 625 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2010) (preemption analysis for state-law claims under FCRA)
- Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2009) (state-actor requirement for §1983 claims)
- Burks v. Wise, 464 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2006) (Seventh Amendment jury-trial considerations in summary-judgment context)