Tedeschi v. USAA Federal Savings Bank, 2:13-cv-00202

This is a pro se, five-count FCRA case where Tedeschi plaintiffs sue USAA for alleged reporting inaccuracies.
The Tedeschis move for partial summary judgment on Counts I, II, and IV; USAA moves for summary judgment on all claims.
The court applies summary judgment standards and evaluates whether USAA violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) duties after a CRA dispute notice.
FCRA duties arise upon receipt of a dispute notice from a CRA, requiring investigation, review of information, and reporting results to the CRA.
The record shows disputes were communicated to USAA primarily by Equifax in September 2012 and by TransUnion in March 2013; other CRAs did not notify USAA of disputes earlier.
The court concludes the evidence shows USAA timely and fully complied with § 1681s-2(b)(1); none of the Tedeschis’ theories show wilful violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did USAA violate 1681s-2(b)(1) by failing to investigate?	Tedeschi that USAA failed to investigate disputed items.	USAA investigated after CRA notices and properly processed disputes.	No violation; USAA fully and timely performed duties.
Is private liability conditioned on CRA notice to USAA?	Tedeschi claim liability exists irrespective of CRA notice timing.	Liability arises only after CRA provides notice of a dispute.	Liability requires CRA notice; no adequate notice prior to 2012 findings.
Did USAA fail to report investigation results to CRAs?	Tedeschi alleged misreporting of investigation results.	USAA reported and corrected information as required.	No failure; investigation results were reported or corrected as appropriate.
Did USAA violate the 30-day deadline for investigations?	Tedeschi claim extended delays breached deadlines.	Duties are to be completed promptly; evidence shows timely actions.	No wilful or timely violation established; actions were timely.

Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2012) (furnisher duties arise only after CRA dispute notice)
Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F. App’x 543 (6th Cir. 2012) (private action requires proper CRA notice; per curiam)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine dispute of material fact)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 F.3d 574 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard; pleading must show material facts)
Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court 2007) (purpose and scope of FCRA privacy and accuracy goals)
Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F. App’x 543 (6th Cir. 2012) (private right of action arises after CRA notice of dispute)