WALTON v. EOS CCA, 1:15-cv-00822

Background

Plaintiff Deborah Walton received a January 27, 2015 debt-collection letter from EOS CCA seeking $268.47 for an AT&T U-verse account (AT&T account listed as 864119170); EOS assigned its own account number and relied on AT&T’s data.
Walton repeatedly disputed the debt by phone, by certified letter, and via two ACDVs submitted through the credit bureaus’ E-Oscar system; she also provided inconsistent last four SSN digits in communications.
EOS’s employee Andrew McCrevan reviewed Walton’s file and, in response to disputes, compared EOS’s records to the information originally supplied by AT&T but did not directly contact AT&T to verify the debt.
After the second ACDV disclosed that AT&T had transposed account digits and issued Walton a refund, EOS closed the collection account and requested Experian and TransUnion delete the tradeline.
Walton filed suit alleging FDCPA and FCRA violations and moved for summary judgment; the magistrate judge recommended granting EOS’s cross-motion and denying Walton’s motions. The district court reviewed objections de novo and adopted the Report, entering final judgment for EOS.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walton actually owed the AT&T debt	Walton asserts she did not owe the debt (transposition/refund)	EOS treated the debt as assigned by AT&T and relied on AT&T’s data	Court assumed Walton may not owe debt but found that factual dispute immaterial to summary judgment outcome
Whether Walton adequately disputed the debt	Walton says she disputed verbally and in writing	EOS does not contest that disputes were made; records show calls, letter, and ACDVs	Court held Walton did dispute the debt; disputes were in the record
Whether EOS was required to contact AT&T to verify the debt (FDCPA/FCRA)	Walton argues EOS should have contacted AT&T directly and thus failed FDCPA/FCRA duties; alleges willfulness/recklessness	EOS contends it reasonably verified its records against AT&T-supplied data and was not required to contact AT&T; its investigation matched the dispute’s nature	Court held EOS’s verification (checking EOS data against AT&T-supplied info) satisfied its duties under the FDCPA in this context and that no reasonable jury would find EOS’s ACDV investigation unreasonable under the FCRA
Whether EOS’s reporting was willful or unreasonable under FCRA	Walton contends lack of direct verification and delayed deletion shows willfulness/reckless disregard	EOS points to its investigation steps and deletion after the second ACDV; argues conduct was reasonable	Court rejected willfulness claim and affirmed that EOS’s response to the ACDVs was not unreasonable; summary judgment for EOS granted

Key Cases Cited

Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752 (7th Cir.) (standard for district judge review of magistrate judge’s report and recommendation)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S.) (summary judgment purpose and standards)
Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.) (summary judgment: nonmoving party must present specific facts to show a genuine issue)
Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582 (7th Cir.) (viewing record and drawing inferences for nonmoving party on summary judgment)
Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734 (7th Cir.) (requirements for specific objections to magistrate judge reports)
Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825 (7th Cir.) (reasonableness of furnisher’s investigation depends on nature of dispute)
Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713 (7th Cir.) (district court not required to scour record for evidence to defeat summary judgment)