Kim Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
507 F. App'x 543
6th Cir.2012Background
- Brown, a pro se Tennessee resident, filed a federal FCRA and state-law complaint against multiple furnishers and credit-reporting entities after alleged misreporting tied to an imposter account and related inquiries beginning in 2008.
- MCM contacted Brown in 2008 about a GE/Wal-Mart account Brown did not recognize; MCM referred him to Wal-Mart, which reported an account opened in 2005 through GEMB and tied to Brown’s address and partial SSN.
- Brown discovered a delinquent Exxon card from Citibank and learned the same address/SSN were used by LVNV; he attempted to remove inaccurate information from his credit file but was unsuccessful.
- Brown sued numerous entities (Wal-Mart, Exxon, GEMB, Citibank, Citigroup, GE, Midland Funding, MCM, Encore, LVNV, AIS, Trans Union, Experian, Equifax) alleging, among other things, FCRA violations, unfair/deceptive practices, fraud, and emotional distress.
- The magistrate judge dismissed some claims, granted summary judgment to Experian and others, and awarded costs; Brown appealed, stipulations had dissolved some defendants, and the panel conducted de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Experian violated the FCRA sections 1681e(b) and 1681i(a) | Brown asserts Experian failed to follow reasonable procedures and reinvestigate disputed information. | Experian had no valid dispute notice or proper dispute, and no report was issued concerning Brown as required. | Experian summary judgment affirmed; no viable 1681e(b) or 1681i(a) claim established. |
| Whether LVNV and furnishers have FCRA 1681s-2(b) duties | Brown alleges LVNV and others failed to properly report and investigate disputed information. | No adequate notice of dispute to LVNV or furnishers; direct contact does not trigger duties, and some claims were waived. | Claims against LVNV and some furnishers dismissed; no private action unless CRA provides notice of dispute. |
| Whether GEMB/Citibank had notice and duties under 1681s-2(b) | GEMB/Citibank failed to investigate and reported inaccuracies after disputes. | GEMB/Citibank did not receive timely notice of disputes; Exxon account disputes were not properly initiated with notice. | GEMB/Citibank granted summary judgment; no 1681s-2(b) duty triggered by Brown’s direct notices. |
| Whether FCRA preemption bars Brown's state-law claims | Alleges malice/willful intent exceptions permit state-law claims notwithstanding preemption. | 1681h(e) preempts certain state-law claims; malice/willful intent exceptions are limited and inadequately pleaded. | Preemption affirmed for certain claims; malice/willful intent allegations deemed too vague; other state-law claims waived. |
| Whether the magistrate judge's conduct justified recusal or biased handling | Brown alleges bias due to personal connections and scheduling remarks, plus sanctions. | No reasonable bias or conflict; rulings were within discretion and sanctions proper. | No reversible bias; no recusal required; sanctions and costs affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaudry v. TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (private CA action requires proper notice to furnisher)
- Harrow Prods., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 64 F.3d 1015 (6th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment standard; no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Laczay v. Ross Adhesives, 855 F.2d 351 (6th Cir. 1988) (waiver via dismissal with prejudice; not to be revisited on appeal)
- Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2002) (direct contact with furnisher does not trigger privacy duties absent CRA notice)
- Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (CRA liability requires proper notice and agency action)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 1997) (Rule 37 sanctions framework; discovery-related expenses)
- Gen. Aviation, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 915 F.2d 1038 (6th Cir. 1990) (impartiality and recusal considerations)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks and appearance of bias; standard for recusal)