Neclerio v. Trans Union, LLC
983 F. Supp. 2d 199
D. Conn.2013Background
- Plaintiff Ralph C. Neclerio Jr. applied for employment at Guilford Savings Bank in 2009; Guilford requested a Trans Union consumer report at 12:56 PM (gave only name and address), received a report that appeared to reflect Plaintiff’s name but contained a different SSN and DOB and public-record derogatory items that belonged to Plaintiff’s father; Guilford shredded that report and re-requested a report at 1:03 PM (this request included Plaintiff’s SSN) and received Plaintiff’s correct report.
- Trans Union sent an automated letter to the Stonewall Drive address (Plaintiff’s father’s address) indicating six public-record items were in the earlier report; Plaintiff and his father contend those items belonged to the father, not Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff notified Guilford and Trans Union; Guilford confirmed it discarded the first report and that Plaintiff’s correct report showed no disqualifying items; Plaintiff’s counsel later sent letters to Trans Union and Trans Union reinvestigated and supplied Plaintiff a copy of his report.
- Plaintiff sued under the FCRA alleging negligent and willful violations of §§ 1681e(b), 1681i, and 1681g (and § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(ii)); he sought emotional and punitive damages but no economic loss was shown.
- Key disputed facts: whether the 12:56 report was Plaintiff’s file, a third‑party (father’s) file, or a hybrid; whether Trans Union’s procedures were unreasonable given prior litigation and potential existing internal controls (e.g., do-not-merge flags).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trans Union violated § 1681e(b) by issuing an inaccurate/ misleading report and failing to follow reasonable procedures | Neclerio: the 12:56 report was his father’s report (or misleading hybrid) that included Plaintiff’s suffix/address; Trans Union should have used safeguards (SSN/DOB requirement, do‑not‑merge flags) given prior history | Trans Union: the 12:56 report was identifiable as not Plaintiff’s (wrong SSN/DOB); it had reasonable procedures and later investigated when notified | Court: Denied summary judgment for Trans Union on § 1681e(b); evidence suffices to send inaccuracy and procedural‑reasonableness questions to a jury |
| Whether Plaintiff proved actual damages (emotional or economic) required for recovery under §§ 1681o/1681n | Neclerio: emotional distress (embarrassment, ongoing worry, chilled credit/employment) from disclosure of father’s adverse records | Trans Union: Plaintiff has no economic loss and offers only conclusory/self‑reported emotional distress with no medical or corroborating evidence | Court: Plaintiff failed to show admissible, objective evidence of emotional or economic damages—insufficient to support damages at summary judgment |
| Whether § 1681i (reasonable reinvestigation) covers the asserted harm (production of another person’s file) | Neclerio: Trans Union should have reinvestigated the error surrounding the 12:56 report and its father’s file after notice | Trans Union: § 1681i governs reinvestigation of items in the consumer’s own file; Plaintiff never asked Trans Union to reinvestigate the father’s file and § 1681i doesn’t authorize reinvestigation of a third party’s file | Court: Dismissed § 1681i claim—statute does not require reinvestigation of another person’s file and Trans Union investigated the item Plaintiff actually disputed in his own file |
| Whether § 1681g and § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(ii) require disclosure to Plaintiff of information appearing in another person’s file (the 12:56 report/public records) | Neclerio: “File” should be read broadly (FTC commentary and other circuits) to require disclosure of all information the CRA records that might be furnished in a consumer report, including items that showed up in the 12:56 report | Trans Union: § 1681g requires disclosure only of "all information in the consumer’s file"; it does not authorize disclosing third‑party files and § 1681h(a) requires proper identification | Court: Denied Plaintiff’s motion on § 1681g; granted summary judgment to Trans Union on § 1681g and § 1681i(a)(6)(B)(ii) claims—no statutory basis to force disclosure of a third party’s file and Plaintiff’s requested relief falls outside § 1681g/i scope |
| Whether Plaintiff may recover punitive damages (willfulness under § 1681n) | Neclerio: Trans Union’s repeated failures and prior litigation put it on notice; its procedures were objectively unreasonable and possibly reckless | Trans Union: its conduct was not objectively unreasonable or knowingly willful; it investigated after notice | Court: Plaintiff produced enough evidence to raise triable issue on willfulness as to § 1681e(b); claim for punitive damages on § 1681e(b) survives summary judgment; punitive damages based on § 1681i/1681g dismissed with those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 56 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 1995) (private right of action under FCRA; negligent and willful violations; damages framework)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (U.S. 2007) (willfulness includes reckless disregard; objective‑reasonableness standard)
- Crabill v. Trans Union, L.L.C., 259 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2001) (sending third‑party report that could mislead recipients; accuracy/standing issues)
- Koropoulos v. The Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (a consumer harmed by disclosure of another’s report may have FCRA claim; agency not shielded from liability because inaccuracy appears in another’s file)
- Gillespie v. Trans Union Corp., 482 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2007) (interpretation of "file" and FTC guidance; scope of § 1681g disclosures)
- Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n v. City of New York, 310 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2002) (evidence required to substantiate emotional‑distress damages)
- Marchica v. Long Island R.R. Co., 31 F.3d 1197 (2d Cir. 1994) (examples of objective evidence supporting emotional‑distress damages)