Healey v. Trans Union, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53522 (W.D. Wash., May 18, 2011)
Facts: Plaintiff's suit arises out of the efforts of Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC's ("DRS") to collect a debt that it purchased from Embarq, based on a delinquent Sprint cellular telephone account that had been opened under Plaintiff's name. Plaintiff claimed that the delinquent account was not hers. DRS began collection efforts in February 2007, and engaged in numerous back-and-forth communications with Plaintiff over the ensuing year and a half. DRS would send Plaintiff a collection letter, to which she would reply by stating that it was not her debt and also include a request to verify the debt. In response, DRS would send Plaintiff the underlying Sprint documents. Plaintiff would not respond, and DRS would resume collection efforts. The account then began to reflect adversely on her Experian credit file. When Plaintiff disputed the account with Experian, it was verified as reporting accurately. Plaintiff filed suit and alleged that DRS's conduct violated the FDCPA and the FCRA. DRS filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part
- Furnisher Duties. Section 1681s-2 of the FCRA imposes two responsibilities on sources that provide credit information to CRAs. First, pursuant to § 1681s-2(a), a furnisher must provide accurate information. Second, pursuant to § 1681s-2(b), a furnisher must investigate and/or correct inaccurate information. These duties are triggered only upon notice of a dispute; specifically, when a person who furnished information to a CRA receives notice from the CRA that the consumer disputes the information. Notice of a dispute received directly from the consumer does not trigger furnisher's duties under subsection (b).
- Furnisher Duties. The FCRA expressly creates a private right of action for willful or negligent non-compliance with its requirements. This right of action, however, is limited to claims arising under § 1681s-2(b). A private litigant can bring a lawsuit to enforce § 1681s-2(b), but only after reporting the dispute to a CRA, which in turn communicates it to the furnisher. Duties imposed under § 1681s-2(a), by contrast, are enforceable only by federal or state agencies.
- Furnisher Investigation. A furnisher's investigation of a dispute pursuant to § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A) must be reasonable. It is Plaintiff's burden to show the investigation was unreasonable. The furnisher's duty to conduct a reasonable investigation arises when it receives a notice of dispute from a CRA. Such notice must include all relevant information regarding the dispute received by the CRA. The pertinent question is whether the furnisher's procedures were reasonable in light of what it learned about the nature of the dispute from the CRA's notice of dispute. Although reasonableness is normally a question for the finder of fact, summary judgment is appropriate when only one conclusion about the conduct's reasonableness is possible. To survive summary judgment, it is not enough that DRS's conclusion regarding the validity of the Sprint/Embarq account ultimately proved to be incorrect. Because there was no evidence that the CRAs sent a dispute notice to DRS, the Court concluded that Plaintiff did not meet her burden to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether DRS violated the FCRA by failing to complete a reasonable investigation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
