Layman v. Stuart Allen & Associates, Inc.

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 23 Motion for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Karen K Caldwell on 4/04/2014. (KMK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
GREG LAYMAN,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-155-KKC

Plaintiff,
V.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STUART ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.

*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Stuart Allen & Associates’ (“SAA”)
motion for summary judgment (DE 23).

On April 1, 2014, the Court held a telephonic

conference at Plaintiff Greg Layman’s request. The conference was held so that Mr. Layman,
who was appearing pro se, could respond to SAA’s motion for summary judgment. Mr. Layman
missed the deadline to respond to the motion for summary judgment and in response to the
Court’s show cause order, requested a hearing. After considering all of the evidence submitted
on the record and oral arguments at the hearing, the Court granted SAA’s motion for summary
judgment (DE 23).
I. BACKGROUND
In 2008 Mr. Layman entered into a contract with Great Lakes Hybrid, a seed company.
(DE 9, p. 1). Mr. Layman and Great Lakes disagreed about whether he had paid $6,782.00 to
Great Lakes, and as a result, Great Lakes brought suit in Tennessee state court to recover the
money. (DE 9, p. 1). The suit ultimately ended in Mr. Layman’s favor in March, 2011.
Prior to the resolution of the lawsuit, in July of 2008, Great Lakes placed an account in
Mr. Layman’s name with Defendant SAA, a collection agency. (DE 24, p. 2). In August 2009,

SAA reported the account to the credit reporting agencies: Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union.
(DE 24, p. 3).
On Friday, April 22, 2011, after Great Lakes’ case against Mr. Layman had been
dismissed, Great Lakes contacted SAA and asked that SAA delete the account information that
had been reported to the credit agencies. On Monday, April 25, 2011, as a courtesy,1 SAA made
the request with Experian,, Equifax, and Trans Union to delete the tradeline referencing Mr.
Layman’s account.

(DE 4, p. 3); (DE 23-1). According to Mr. Layman, however, such a

change was not reflected in his credit report until much later in January, 2013.2
II. ANALYSIS
Unfortunately, based on the facts Mr. Layman alleges, his grievances are broader than the
narrow issues before this Court concerning this defendant. Mr. Layman brings his complaint
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and alleges that SAA was negligent and
unsuccessful in its attempts to delete the negative information from his credit report. (DE 9).
While the Court is sympathetic to the facts of Mr. Layman’s case, his claim is not actionable
under the FCRA against SAA because SAA complied with the FCRA. Here, there are no
material facts in dispute, and Mr. Layman’s claim fails as a matter of law.
Under the FCRA, SAA is considered a “furnisher” of information to consumer reporting
agencies. (DE 24, p. 5). A furnisher has a duty to investigate and review information only after
a credit reporting agency (“CRA) informs a furnisher that a consumer disputes information on
his or her report. Yaldu v. Bank of Am. Corp., 700 F. Supp.2d 832, 843 (E.D. Mich. 2010).

1

Notably, SAA’s attempt to delete the information in April 2011 was only a courtesy to Mr. Layman, as a
furnisher’s duty to investigate and take action, as explained in this opinion, arises only after a credit reporting
agency has given notice of a consumer complaint.
2
This information is not provided in the complaint. At the telephonic conference, Mr. Layman referred to several
facts and exhibits not filed in the record.

2

Thus, “an individual may not pursue a claim against the furnisher of information under the
statute [the CFRA], even if the individual has apprised the furnisher of information of the
dispute. Thus, the duty of a furnisher . . . is triggered only after the furnisher receives notice of
the dispute from a consumer reporting agency.” Westbrooks v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 3:05-0664,
2005 WL 3240614, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2005).
Here, Mr. Layman simply has not alleged in his complaint, nor at the telephonic
conference that he reported the information to a credit reporting agency, or that a credit reporting
agency notified SAA. Thus, even if Mr. Layman contacted SAA directly, no duty to investigate
arose, and Mr. Layman’s claim under the CRA fails as a matter of law.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the above stated reasons and for the reasons previously stated on the
record at the telephonic conference, the Court has granted SAA’s motion for summary judgment
(DE 23).
This 4th day of April, 2014.

3