Stroud v. Bank of America
886 F. Supp. 2d 1308
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Stroud, proceeding pro se, filed a 13-count FCRA and Florida-law suit arising from disputed identity-theft-related credit-report information.
- Defendants are Trans Union, LLC; Bank of America (f/k/a FIA Card Services, N.A.); Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; and CACH, LLC.
- BOA allegedly failed to conduct a reasonable investigation under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) and provided inaccurate information under Florida defamation law.
- CACH allegedly failed to conduct a reasonable investigation under §1681s-2(b) and provided inaccurate information under Florida defamation law.
- Experian allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i, 1681h(e), and 1681g, and Florida defamation law; the court later found some of these claims time-barred or preempted.
- The court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motions, cancelled deadlines and trial, and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOA violated §1681s-2(b) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation. | Stroud contends BOA’s investigation was unreasonable and possibly inaccurate. | BOA conducted a reasonable, evidence-based investigation and reported findings; no genuine issue of material fact remains. | BOA entitled to summary judgment on §1681s-2(b) claim. |
| Whether BOA’s defamation claim is preempted by the FCRA. | BOA’s reporting caused false statements; claims should proceed. | FCRA preempts state defamation where no malice or willful intent is shown; claims fail. | BOA summary judgment on defamation claim due to preemption and lack of malice/willful intent. |
| Whether CACH conducted a reasonable investigation and reported accurately under §1681s-2(b); defamation claim preempted. | CACH’s filings and records show potential errors and ownership disputes. | CACH reviewed files, corrected errors (erasing disputed account), and relied on affidavits of sale; investigation reasonable. | CACH granted summary judgment on §1681s-2(b) and defamation claim (preempted). |
| Whether Experian’s §1681i and §1681h(e) claims are time-barred or preempted; and status of §1681g claim. | Stroud argues ongoing violations; discovery timing debated. | §1681i claim accrued when violations occurred; §1681h(e) preemption applies; §1681g claim remaining. | Experian: §1681i time-barred; defamation preemption applies; §1681g claim dismissed; remaining defamation/§1681i claims resolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nagle v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 297 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2002) (actual damages required for §1681i; lack of damages supports summary judgment)
- Jackson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 167 Fed.Appx. 144 (11th Cir. 2006) (damages evidence required for §1681i claims; summary judgment if none)
- Cintron-Luna v. Roman-Bultron, 668 F.Supp.2d 315 (D.P.R. 2009) (statute accrual for FCRA claims; discovery-based accrual principles)
- Must o v. Bell South Telecommunications Corp., 748 So.2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (single publication rule does not apply to certain repeat credit-report disclosures)