46 F. Supp. 3d 871
E.D. Wis.2014Background
- Levine financed a 2007 Mercedes under a contract assigned to Chase; payments due monthly beginning Sept. 24, 2009. Levine (and his S-corp) missed the Sept. and Oct. 2012 payments and paid them Nov. 8, 2012.
- Chase routinely sent courtesy monthly statements and warned it might report delinquencies; Chase reported Levine as delinquent to credit bureaus consistent with its standard practice.
- Levine alleges he did not receive certain statements or collection calls, discovered the delinquencies only after checking his credit report, and contends Chase’s reporting harmed his ability to refinance.
- Levine submitted direct disputes to Chase and indirect disputes via CRAs; Chase investigated each ACDV, verified the reported delinquencies, coded the account as disputed where appropriate, and closed investigations.
- Chase moved for summary judgment on Levine’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) (furnisher’s duty to investigate and correct inaccurate/incomplete information); the court granted summary judgment for Chase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chase failed to conduct a reasonable investigation under §1681s-2(b) | Levine: Chase’s procedures were unreasonable and did not verify his asserted nonreceipt of statements or calls | Chase: Followed written, facially reasonable procedures; verified payments were late and reported accurately | Held: Chase’s investigation was reasonable as a matter of law; Levine offered no evidence its procedures were unreasonable |
| Whether the reported information was inaccurate or materially misleading | Levine: Reporting without noting responsibility for missed statements created misleading credit report | Chase: Reports were factually correct—the account was delinquent—and not materially misleading absent a bona fide dispute altering understanding | Held: Reporting was neither patently incorrect nor materially misleading; no duty to alter reports for a meritless dispute |
| Causation / actual damages from alleged FCRA violation | Levine: Lower credit score caused refinancing denial (U.S. Bank) | Chase: Denial occurred before Chase’s investigation was triggered; Levine offered no evidence linking reporting to credit-score calculation or damages | Held: Levine failed to show causal harm from any alleged unreasonable investigation or reporting |
| Attorney fees / bad-faith litigation potential | N/A (Chase sought fees) | Chase: Plaintiff’s pleadings may warrant fees under §1681n(c) as filed in bad faith | Held: Court granted summary judgment but deferred entry of final judgment to allow Chase to file a motion for fees within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (inferences and summary judgment)
- Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825 (reasonableness of furnisher procedures)
- Chiang v. Verizon New England, Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (furnisher entitled to summary judgment absent evidence procedures unreasonable)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (when undisputed reporting of debt is not incomplete or misleading)
- Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Virg., 526 F.3d 142 (FCRA inaccuracy includes misleading omissions)
- Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890 (definition of materially misleading credit information)
- Crabill v. Trans Union, L.L.C., 259 F.3d 662 (causation required for actual damages under FCRA)
- Edeh v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (verification of accurate information defeats §1681s-2(b) claim)
- Passananti v. Cook Cnty., 689 F.3d 655 (district court discretion to delay entry of judgment)