Van Veen v. Equifax Information
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21019
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiff alleges AT&T Corp. violated the FCRA by reporting and not removing disputed information.
- AT&T moved for summary judgment on (1) accuracy of reporting, (2) reasonableness of investigation, (3) damages, and (4) FCC referral; ruling requested on related issues.
- FCRA 1681s-2(b) governs furnishers’ duties after a CRA dispute; 1681s-2(a) limits private actions to not challenging initial reporting.
- Plaintiff disputed balances from 2007–2009; AT&T adjusted and/or deleted some entries but left others intact.
- ACDV disputes from Experian, Trans Union, and Equifax triggered AT&T investigations; the court analyzes the reasonableness and outcomes of those investigations.
- Court grants in part and denies in part: certain reports and damages are dismissed, emotional damages and punitive damages proceed, and FCC referral is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of the furnisher’s investigation | AT&T failed to conduct a meaningful investigation | Investigation reasonable given scant CRA notice | Reasonableness disputed; issues for trial on Experian ACDV not clearly beyond question |
| Accuracy and reporting of disputed accounts | Furnisher should have markes accounts as disputed | No duty to flag every dispute; focuses on factual inaccuracies | Triable issue; reporting disputed accounts may be inaccurate if misleading under FCRA per governing standard |
| Damages for emotional harm and reputational injury | Damages for humiliation and distress allowed under FCRA | No provable damages; limits on reputational harm | Emotional harm; punitive damages and reputational damages not barred at summary stage; emotional harm allowed |
| Punitive damages under FCRA | Willful or reckless conduct supported by conduct patterns | Limited evidence of recklessness | Denial of summary judgment on punitive damages; triable issue |
| Primary jurisdiction to FCC | Case should be referred to FCC | Not within FCC’s primary jurisdiction; FCRA private right exists | No referral to FCC; private FCRA action remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiang v. Verizon New England, Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (investigation judged in light of CRA dispute notice; not required to uncover all incorrectness)
- Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Va., 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008) (reporting a debt without noting a dispute can be misleading and actionable)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (furnisher liable for failing to report a debt as disputed when challenged)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (damages for humiliation and distress; corroboration not always required)
- Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of procedures is typically a trial issue)
- Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (reasonableness determined by balance of costs and potential harms)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (willful standard—reckless disregard under reasonable interpretation of statute)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: movant must show no genuine issue of material fact)