Taylor v. Screening Reports, Inc.
294 F.R.D. 680
N.D. Ga.2013Background
- In 2010 Michael Taylor was denied an apartment after Screening Reports, Inc. (SRI) produced a criminal background report misattributing convictions belonging to other people named Michael Taylor. Silverleaf’s adverse-action notice told Taylor he could obtain a free copy of his “report.”
- Taylor requested his “report” from SRI; SRI sent only the criminal background report it had furnished Silverleaf and did not provide Taylor’s entire consumer file.
- Taylor sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging: (a) SRI violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (failure to follow reasonable procedures), (b) SRI violated § 1681g(a) by failing to disclose his full consumer file when he requested his “report” (the “Report Claim”), and (c) SRI ignored a separate request for a “complete file” (the “File Claim”). He sought class certification for the § 1681g Report Claim.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying summary judgment on the reasonable-procedures and File Claim, but recommended dismissal of the § 1681g Report Claim (finding no statutory duty triggered by a general request for a “report,” no actual damages from the nondisclosure, and no willfulness). Taylor objected to dismissal of the Report Claim and to denial of class certification as moot.
- The district court reviewed de novo the objections and held that (1) a general request for a consumer’s “report” invokes § 1681g(a) and therefore entitles the consumer to the entire file; (2) Taylor produced no evidence of actual damages caused by the nondisclosure so negligent-liability under § 1681o fails; but (3) there is sufficient record evidence (including SRI’s written policy) from which a reasonable jury could find SRI willfully violated § 1681g, so the Report Claim survives summary judgment. The court denied class certification without prejudice and invited a narrower renewed motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a consumer’s general request for his “report” triggers a CRA’s duty under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a) to disclose the entire consumer file | Taylor: requesting a “report” without limitation should require disclosure of the entire file under § 1681g | SRI: the consumer must specifically request a “file”; request for a “report” need not trigger full-file disclosure | Court: A general request for a “report” invokes § 1681g(a); consumer-oriented FCRA interpretation and statutory cross-reference support disclosure of the full file |
| Whether negligent noncompliance under § 1681g requires proof of actual damages and whether Taylor proved causation from the nondisclosure | Taylor: denial of apartment and reputational harm are damages tied to SRI’s conduct | SRI: those harms predated Taylor’s request and are unrelated to the alleged failure to disclose the full file | Court: Negligent claim requires actual damages causally linked to the § 1681g nondisclosure; Taylor produced no evidence tying the damages to SRI’s failure to disclose, so negligent claim dismissed |
| Whether SRI’s conduct was willful under § 1681n, permitting statutory damages without proof of actual damages | Taylor: SRI’s written policy and other evidence permit a finding that SRI knew or recklessly disregarded its § 1681g duty | SRI: its interpretive reading was reasonable; per Safeco, an objectively reasonable statutory interpretation precludes willfulness | Court: Material factual disputes exist (written policy vs. testimony about its scope); a reasonable jury could find willfulness, so willful-liability claim survives summary judgment |
| Whether the proposed nationwide class (all persons who requested a copy of their consumer file from SRI) satisfies Rule 23 (commonality, typicality, predominance) | Taylor: class appropriate because all requesters were entitled to full files under § 1681g and suffered the same injury | SRI: class improperly includes consumers who expressly sought only a specific report and who received exactly what they wanted (no injury); individualized inquiries would predominate | Court: Proposed class is overbroad and mixes injured and non-injured members; commonality/typicality and predominance problems require denial without prejudice and leave opportunity to renew with a narrower class |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunnally v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 451 F.3d 768 (11th Cir.) (discusses the relationship between § 1681g and other FCRA provisions regarding what constitutes a consumer report)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (willfulness inquiry: reckless or knowing violations; objectively unreasonable statutory interpretation supports a finding of recklessness)
- Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir.) (plaintiff must prove actual damages causally linked to FCRA noncompliance for negligent claims)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir.) (FCRA is remedial and should be construed liberally in favor of consumers)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) (Rule 23 commonality requires that class members have suffered the same injury)