Miller v. Equifax Information Services LLC
Filing
24
OPINION and ORDER: The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 15 . Signed on 11/28/2012 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (bb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JULIE MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
a foreign limited liability company,
Defendant.
MICHAEL C. BAXTER
JUSTIN M. BAXTER
Baxter & Baxter LLP
8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130
Portland, OR 97225
(503) 297-9031
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JEFFREY M. EDELSON
Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, P.C.
Suite 3000 Pacwest Center
1211 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 295-3085
LEWIS P. PERLING
King & Spalding LLP
1180 Peachtree Stree, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404) 572-4600
Attorneys for Defendant
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
3-11-CV-01231-BR
OPINION AND ORDER
BROWN, Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion
(#15) for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's First and
Second Claims for Relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C.
1681(n) and 1681(o).
§§
For the reasons that
follow, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
A.
Factual Allegations.
Plaintiff alleges that she requested a copy of her credit
report from Defendant in December 2009 after she was denied
credit.by a bank.
On or about January 5, 2010, Defendant
requested Plaintiff to provide additional identifying
information, and Plaintiff complied with the request on or about
January 11, 2010.
On January 21, 2010,
1
Defendant provided
Plaintiff with a credit report dated January 18, 2010, that
included allegedly false identification information, an incorrect
Social Security number and birthdate as well as derogatory
collection account information improperly attributed to accounts
belonging to Plaintiff.
1
In her Complaint Plaintiff states the date that Defendant
requested the information and the date that she responded as
January 5, 2011, and January 21, 2011, respectively.
It is clear
from the record that those dates should have been alleged as
January 5, 2010, and January 21, 2010, and the Court considers
them as such for purposes of this Motion.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
On nine separate occasions between January 2010 and
September 2011 Plaintiff disputed the allegedly incorrect
information in Equifax's January 18, 2010, credit report.
Nevertheless, Defendant continued to send to Plaintiff the same
form letter repeatedly requesting additional identifying
information, and on each occasion, Plaintiff provided the
requested information.
In the meantime, Plaintiff alleges she was denied credit by
Key Bank on March 2, 2010, based on information in her Equifax
credit report.
On September 28, 2011, after the last letter from Defendant
requesting further information, Plaintiff brought this action
under FCRA.
B.
Alleged FCRA Violations.
Plaintiff alleges Equifax either willfully or negligently
violated FCRA as follows:
(1) by not following "reasonable procedures to assure
maximum accuracy of the information concerning the individual
about whom the report relates" in violation of 16 U.S.C. §
1581e(b);
(2) by not complying with FCRA's reinvestigation
requirements regarding the accuracy of information contained in
Plaintiff's file in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 1581i;
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
(3} by providing Plaintiff's credit file to companies
without determining whether those companies had a permissible
purpose to obtain that credit file in violation of 16 U.S.C.
§
168lb(3}; and
(4} by failing to provide Plaintiff with a copy of her
credit file in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 168lg.
Plaintiff alleges she has suffered and will continue to
suffer actual damages arising from the denial of credit; the lost
opportunity to obtain credit; the loss of her good reputation
damages to her reputation; and her resulting worry, distress,
frustration,
embarrassment, and humiliation.
STANDARDS
Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law."
Washington Mut. Ins. v. United
States, No. 09-36109, 2011 WL 723101, at *8 (9th Cir. Mar. 3,
2011}.
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a}.
The moving party must
show the absence of a dispute as to a material fact.
Rivera v.
Philip Morris, Inc., 395 F. 3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005}.
In
response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the
nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and show there is a
genuine dispute as to a material fact for trial.
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
Id.
"This
burden is not a light one . .
The non-moving party must do
more than show there is some 'metaphysical doubt' as to the
material facts at issue."
In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627
F. 3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
A dispute as to a material fact is genuine ''if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party."
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.,
281 F.3d
1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
The court must draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
v. Verity, Inc.,
606 F. 3d 584, 587
(9th Cir. 2010).
Sluimer
"Summary
judgment cannot be granted where contrary inferences may be drawn
from the evidence as to material issues."
381 F.3d 948, 957
Easter v. Am. W. Fin.,
(9th Cir. 2004) (citing Sherman Oaks Med. Arts
Ctr., Ltd. v. Carpenters Local Union No. 1936, 680 F.2d 594, 598
(9th Cir. 1982)).
A "mere disagreement or bald assertion" that a genuine
dispute as to a material fact exists "will not preclude the grant
of summary judgment."
Deering v. Lassen Cmty. Coll. Dist., No.
2:07-CV-1521-JAM-DAD, 2011 WL 202797, at *2 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 20,
2011) (citing Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir.
1987)).
See also Jackson v. Bank of Haw., 902 F.2d 1385, 1389
(9th Cir. 1990).
When the nonmoving party's claims are factually
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
implausible, that party must "come forward with more persuasive
evidence than otherwise would be necessary."
LVRC Holdings LLC
v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1137 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Blue Ridge
Ins. Co. v. Stanewich, 142 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998)).
The substantive law governing a claim or a defense
determines whether a fact is material.
Prod., Inc.,
Miller v. Glenn Miller
454 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir. 2006).
If the
resolution of a factual dispute would not affect the outcome of
the claim, the court may grant summary judgment.
Id.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends there is not a genuine dispute of
material fact and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law on the basis that Plaintiff (1) cannot recover
damages for denial of credit,
(2) cannot recover damages based on
lost credit opportunities, and (3) cannot recover damages for
loss of her good reputation.
A.
Denial of Credit.
Defendant asserts there is not a genuine dispute of material
fact as to Plaintiff being denied credit because of erroneous
information in her credit report.
Defendant notes that
Plaintiff, on the two occasions that she was denied credit, was
merely cosigning for credit in her son's name at Key Bank and at
6 - OPINION AND ORDER
a management company for the apartment that her son was leasing.
Thus, neither application involved personal credit in her name.
Defendant also points out that Plaintiff was unaware of the
details regarding the rejection of her son's application for
credit except for the letter from Key Bank indicating its
decision to deny credit to her son was based on the Equifax
credit report.
Because Plaintiff did not provide any information
to Defendant as to why her son's application for an apartment
lease was denied,
Defendant contends Plaintiff may not recover
actual damages otherwise allowable under FCRA based on adverse
consequences to her son.
The fact that Plaintiff's son rather than Plaintiff was the
putative beneficiary of Plaintiff's credit, however, does not
alter the fact that Plaintiff's credit report apparently was a
factor in the rejection of her son's application for a lease and
for credit at Key Bank.
In Guimond v.
Trans Union,
45 F.3d 1329,
1333 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court addressed what is meant by
"actual damages" under FCRA:
The term "actual damages" has been interpreted
to include recovery for emotional distress
and humiliation.
Moreover, no case has held
that a denial of credit is a prerequisite to
recovery under the FCRA.
See also Bradshaw v. BAC Home Loans Serv., LP, 816 F. Supp. 1066,
1075 (D. Or. 2011) ("Actual damages resulting from fees incurred
7 - OPINION AND ORDER
in requesting credit reports, emotional distress, and humiliation
are also recoverable.").
On this record the Court concludes Defendant has not
demonstrated as a matter of law that it is factually implausible
for Plaintiff to prove that she suffered actual damages as a
result of the denial of credit to her son or his difficulty in
leasing an apartment based on adverse information in her credit
report.
Accordingly, summary judgment on this basis is not
warranted.
B.
Damages for Lost Credit Opportunities/Repu tation.
Plaintiff asserts she did not apply for additional credit
after these denials for fear that her new applications would be
denied as well.
She also contends her reputation has been
damaged as a result of Equifax's actions.
Defendant, in turn, argues Plaintiff was unable to identify
any specific lost credit opportunities and, in any event, any
purported damage to her reputation is speculative.
The Court disagrees that Plaintiff's fear of lost credit
opportunities and/or damage to her reputation is speculative or
factually implausible.
As the record reflects, Plaintiff's poor
credit rating as reported by Equifax has already had adverse
consequences in the recent past, and, as a matter of common
sense, rational jurors might conclude it is likely to be harmful
in the future unless changes, if warranted, are made to her
8 - OPINION AND ORDER
credit report.
According ly, the Court denies Defendant 's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on this ground as well.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Motion
(#15) for Partial Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
J&f~ay
of November, 2012.
ANNA J. BRO
United States District Judge
9 - OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?