William Schweitzer, Jr. v. Equifax Information Solutions, 441 F. App'x 896

Schweitzer appeals pro se from two district court summary judgments favoring Equifax; court affirms in part, vacates in part, remands.
In 2008, Schweitzer and wife sued Equifax in state court alleging FCRA violations and negligent misrepresentation; case removed to district court.
District Court granted summary judgment on Schweitzer’s claims and those assigned by Mrs. Schweitzer; facts presented by Equifax remained undisputed except for Americredit dispute.
Appellate court reviews de novo and may affirm on any basis in the record; most accounts were found not to be inaccurate under the FCRA.
Key issue concerns Americredit account reporting inconsistencies, where later reports listed the account as Included in Bankruptcy despite earlier statements to the contrary.
Overall, court affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schweitzer proved § 1681e(b) inaccuracy	Schweitzer alleges Americredit inaccuracy and overall reporting failures.	Equifax followed reasonable procedures; most items were accurate and 1681e(b) satisfied.	Americredit issue creates material fact; partial reversal on § 1681e(b) for Americredit
Whether reinvestigations under § 1681i(a) were reasonable	Reinvestigations should be more thorough, not merely parroting initial sources.	Equifax conducted standard dispute handling and reinvestigations per policy.	Genuine issue of material fact to be resolved on Americredit reinvestigation
Whether § 1681i(a)(5)(C), § 1681i(d), and § 1681k claims were properly granted/denied	Potential reinsertion or improper notification and employment-reporting failures were at issue.	No evidence of reinsertions; no failure to notify or to maintain employment-reporting safeguards.	Affirmed on these subclaims; no reasonable basis to find violations
Whether Schweitzer stated a negligent misrepresentation claim under § 552	Equifax supplied information negligently and foreseeably caused injury.	No justifiable reliance by Schweitzer; no privity requirement but limited foreseeability restricts who may sue.	Dismissed; no justifiable reliance by Schweitzer

Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957 (3d Cir. 1996) (set of elements for § 1681e(b) and reasonableness of procedures)
Cortez v. Trans Union, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (reasonable reinvestigation standards; context-specific factors)
Cushman v. Trans Union, 115 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 1997) (requires more than parroting information; burdens for reasonable investigation)
Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir. 1991) (definition of inaccurate information for § 1681e(b))
Sarver v. Experian Info. Solutions, 390 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of procedures; standard for evaluating 1681e(b) claims)