WALKER v. GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.
2:21-cv-14976
| D.N.J. | Jul 12, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Tasiha Walker had a student loan serviced by Great Lakes; the account was closed and transferred in July 2018.
- Trans Union’s investigation results (produced after a July 2019 dispute) showed: Pay Status = “Account 120 Days Past Due,” Balance = $0, Date Updated = 07/31/2018, Date Closed = 07/31/2018, and remark “CLOSED DUE TO TRANSFER.”
- Walker did not allege she repaid the loan before transfer and did not claim she was denied credit or charged higher rates; she alleged lowered creditworthiness, emotional harm, and unspecified actual damages.
- Walker sued Trans Union under the FCRA asserting violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (accuracy) and § 1681i (reasonable reinvestigation).
- Trans Union moved for judgment on the pleadings; the court considered the investigation results (integral to the complaint) and granted the motion, dismissing with prejudice and denying leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trans Union reported inaccurate or materially misleading information under the FCRA | Walker: reporting “currently 120 days delinquent” on an account she no longer owes is inaccurate/misleading and lowers her credit score | Trans Union: the report, read as a whole, shows a closed $0-balance account and historical delinquency, not a current obligation | Court: report is accurate as a matter of law when read in full; not misleading to a creditor; judgment for Trans Union |
| Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the complaint | Walker sought leave to cure deficiencies | Trans Union opposed; argued amendment would be futile | Court: denied leave as futile; dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must show report was inaccurate to state FCRA claim)
- Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2014) (definition of inaccuracy includes materially misleading presentation)
- Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, 521 F. Supp. 3d 569 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (historical pay-status on closed $0 account not misleading when read as a whole)
- Schweitzer v. Equifax Info. Sols. LLC, [citation="441 F. App'x 896"] (3d Cir. 2011) (technically correct information may still be misleading depending on presentation)
- Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(c) standard)
- Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Assocs. II PC, 935 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2019) (motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings analyzed under same standard)