Shimon v. Equifax Information Services LLC
994 F.3d 88
| 2d Cir. | 2021Background
- March 2013: Clerk entered a default judgment against Jacob Shimon for a debt collection action; Asset Acceptance garnished wages.
- December 2013: Shimon and Asset Acceptance filed a joint stipulation resolving the action; court docket annotated the matter "Settled"; Asset Acceptance retained amounts it had collected.
- 2014: Equifax reported the entry and, after Shimon disputed, labeled the item "JUDGMENT SATISFIED." Equifax verified the entry with the Kings County Civil Court and used LexisNexis as a contractor to retrieve court records.
- 2016–2018: Shimon repeatedly disputed the "satisfied" designation and sought disclosure of sources and reinvestigation (including identification of LexisNexis).
- 2018 litigation: Shimon sued Equifax under the FCRA alleging negligent and willful violations of §§ 1681e(b), 1681g, and 1681i. The district court dismissed one claim, granted summary judgment for Equifax on the remainder, and denied leave to amend; Shimon appealed.
- Second Circuit affirmed: the "satisfied" notation was accurate; Shimon failed to prove actual damages from any source-disclosure/reinvestigation lapse; and Equifax could invoke Safeco's reasonable-interpretation defense without proving a contemporaneous subjective adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shimon) | Defendant's Argument (Equifax) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of report under §1681e(b) | "JUDGMENT SATISFIED" was misleading; court implicitly vacated judgment so entry should reflect that | Industry standard to report a settled judgment as "satisfied"; docket showed "Settled," not vacatur | "Satisfied" was accurate; §1681e(b) claims dismissed |
| Source-disclosure (§1681g) and reinvestigation (§1681i) negligence | Equifax failed to disclose LexisNexis as a source/furnisher and failed to notify furnisher of dispute | Even if LexisNexis was not disclosed, Shimon suffered no actual damages from that omission | Summary judgment for Equifax — plaintiff produced no evidence of actual damages |
| Willfulness under §§1681g and 1681i (Safeco) | Equifax's statutory construction was unreasonable; Equifax must prove it actually adopted the interpretation to get Safeco defense | Equifax’s reading (excluding contractor gathering public records as a "source"/"furnisher") was objectively reasonable; Safeco requires only objective reasonableness, not proof of subjective adoption | Court held Equifax’s interpretation was not objectively unreasonable and Safeco defense applies without showing contemporaneous subjective adoption; willfulness claims dismissed |
| Leave to amend to plead subjective interpretation | Proposed amendment would allege Equifax did not actually adopt the legal interpretation it relies on | Amendment would be futile because Safeco defense is objective and plaintiff lacks damages | Denial of leave to amend affirmed as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (willfulness under FCRA requires reckless disregard; objective reasonableness precludes liability)
- Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2001) (credit-report inaccuracy defined as patently incorrect or misleading to an adverse effect)
- Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 56 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 1995) (plaintiff bears burden to prove actual damages for negligent FCRA violations)
- Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 802 F.3d 437 (2d Cir. 2015) (FCRA enacted to promote accuracy of consumer credit information)
- Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 671 F.3d 371 (3d Cir. 2012) (applies Safeco’s objective-reasonableness framework)
- Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank, 554 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2009) (same)
- Van Straaten v. Shell Oil Prods. Co. LLC, 678 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2012) (describes willfulness as an objective question of law under Safeco)