Thomas v. Clear Investigative Advantage, LLC
2017 Ark. App. 547
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Clear Investigative Advantage, LLC (a consumer-reporting agency) prepared a criminal-background report on Jeff Thomas for Express Employment in January 2014 based on records obtained from Courthouse Concepts, Inc. (CCI) and the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) website.
- The report contained a conviction record that matched exactly the AOC website entry and the CCI report; Clear Investigative verified Thomas’s name, middle name, and date of birth before reporting.
- Thomas knew about the court-recorded information as early as 2007 but did not seek correction until June 1, 2015, when he obtained a correction letter from the AOC.
- Thomas sued in February 2015 alleging defamation, slander, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); he later nonsuited his state-law claims and claims against CCI, leaving only the FCRA claim against Clear Investigative.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Clear Investigative on the FCRA claim, finding it reasonably relied on the AOC website; Thomas appealed, abandoning his nonsuited claims in his notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clear Investigative violated the FCRA by reporting inaccurate criminal-history information | Thomas contended the report violated FCRA duties and that furnishers’ duties or other statutory provisions applied to Clear Investigative | Clear Investigative argued it was a consumer-reporting agency that reasonably relied on public court records (AOC) and CCI, and that furnisher duties did not apply to it | Summary judgment for Clear Investigative: court held it reasonably relied on AOC/CCI records and conducted a reasonable investigation, so no FCRA violation |
| Whether state-law claims or statute-of-limitations issues should block summary judgment | Thomas argued state-law claims were viable and not preempted and that timeliness was contested | Clear Investigative noted Thomas nonsuited those claims; the trial court dismissed them without prejudice but Thomas abandoned them on appeal | Moot: Thomas nonsuited and abandoned state-law claims, so related arguments are not considered on appeal |
| Finality / appealability of judgment after nonsuit | Thomas preserved appeal while nonsuiting other claims | Clear Investigative and court treated nonsuit and summary-judgment orders together; Thomas’s notice abandoned nonsuited claims | Court found finality issue resolved by Thomas’s abandonment and proceeded to merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Beverly Enters.-Ark., Inc. v. Hillier, 341 Ark. 1 (discusses nonsuit/dismissal without prejudice and finality)
- Chamberlin v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 343 Ark. 392 (summary-judgment standard and appellate review)
- Pro Transp., Inc. v. Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc., 96 Ark. App. 166 (prohibits appealing adverse judgment while leaving nonsuited claims to enable piecemeal appeals)
- Wilson v. Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers, 330 Ark. 298 (court will not issue advisory opinions; mootness doctrine)