9 F. Supp. 3d 1329
N.D. Ga.2014Background
- Final Report and Recommendation recommends granting Bank of America’s summary judgment.
- Plaintiff Reginald Ware, pro se, alleges FDCPA and FCRA violations regarding a debt originally with MBNA, later FIA/Bank of America.
- Account opened June 14, 1996; address changes over time; statements sent to Ware at multiple addresses.
- In 2006 Bank of America/FIA acquired the account; Ware acknowledges takeover but disputes default status.
- Defendant asserts Ware’s account was not in default when acquired and that it conducted a reasonable investigation of CRA disputes.
- Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and grants summary judgment to Bank of America on both FDCPA and FCRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA applicability to defendant | Ware alleges defendant as debt collector. | Defendant was not a debt collector as it acquired its own debt. | FDCPA not applicable to defendant. |
| FDCPA sufficiency of pleadings | Complaint tracks FDCPA provisions but lacks specifics. | Plaintiff failed to show defendant acted as a debt collector. | Plaintiff fails to state plausible FDCPA claim. |
| FCRA private right of action for furnishers | Defendant furnished inaccurate information and failed to investigate. | FCRA private suit limited to §1681s-2(b) disputes after CRA notice; no evidence of unreasonable investigation. | FCRA claim fails; no viable private right of action. |
| Effect of Form 1099-C | 1099-C evidence shows cancellation and supports FDCPA/FCRA violations. | 1099-C does not discharge debt; not evidence of misstatement by furnisher. | No genuine dispute; 1099-C does not create FDCPA/FCRA violation. |
| Reasonableness of defendant’s investigation | Investigation of disputes was unreasonable. | Investigation by comparing identifiers was reasonable. | Defendant conducted reasonable investigation; no dispute genuine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Bank, None (N.D. Ga. 2012) (FDCPA debt collector status depends on default status at acquisition)
- Buckley v. Bayrock Mortg. Corp., None (N.D. Ga. 2010) (FDCPA elements; burden shifting in summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden on movant and burden on nonmovant; summary judgment standard)
- Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must plead and prove debt collector status and related conduct)
- Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc; standard for summary judgment)