Stevens v. Genesis Credit Management, LLC, 6:15-cv-01898

Stevens rented from IPMG in 2006, left in 2007 with no balance; a collections account for the IPMG debt appeared on his credit report in 2015 and was reported by Genesis to Equifax.
Stevens disputed the debt to Genesis; Genesis sent a letter stating the account "was assigned in error" and that Genesis would request deletion from CRAs.
Stevens submitted that Genesis Letter to Equifax via its online dispute system in August 2015; Equifax forwarded the dispute and the letter to Genesis through the ACDV process.
Genesis replied via ACDV one week later asserting the account did belong to Stevens and asked Equifax to update the balance; Equifax communicated the reinvestigation result to Stevens the same day.
Stevens sued Equifax under the FCRA for (1) reporting items older than seven years (15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)), (2) failing to follow reasonable procedures (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)), and (3) failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation (15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)).
Magistrate Judge Russo recommended granting summary judgment to Equifax on the § 1681c(a) and § 1681e(b) claims but denying summary judgment on the § 1681i(a) claim because a factual dispute exists whether Equifax unreasonably relied solely on ACDV responses despite having Genesis’s contradictory letter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Stevens' response to MSJ	Late filing was inadvertent; corrected promptly	Response was untimely and should be disregarded	Court rejected timeliness objection; accepted corrected filing
§ 1681c(a): Reporting >7 years	Account reporting violated statute (older than 7 years)	Report was within the 7.5‑year window; claim waived by plaintiff's failure to contest	Summary judgment for Equifax — claim dismissed
§ 1681e(b): Failure to use reasonable procedures	Equifax’s procedures did not prevent inaccurate reporting	Equifax has reasonable onboarding, quality checks, and procedures; plaintiff produced no rebuttal evidence	Summary judgment for Equifax — claim dismissed
§ 1681i(a): Unreasonable reinvestigation	Equifax unreasonably relied on ACDV verification despite receiving Genesis Letter stating "assigned in error"	Forwarding full dispute (including letter) via ACDV was industry‑standard and reasonable; letter attribution unclear	Summary judgment denied — genuine issue whether reinvestigation was reasonable; claim proceeds

T.W. Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (summary judgment construction rules)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (reasonable jury standard on summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party burden on summary judgment)
Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (prima facie § 1681e(b) framework)
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (when information is "misleading" for FCRA accuracy)
Bradshaw v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 816 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (D. Or. 2011) (CRA on notice must do more than ACDV verification)
Dennis v. BEH‑1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (reinvestigation duty triggered by consumer dispute)
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing collateral disputes)
Mone v. Dranow, 945 F.2d 306 (9th Cir. 1991) (FCRA scope excludes business/commercial reports)
Boydstun v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 187 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (D. Or. 2016) (clarifying FCRA damages for business losses)