A District Court judge in Missouri has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment after it was sued for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it allegedly did not conduct a reasonable investigation after being notified of a dispute, even though the plaintiff included the letter he received from the defendant verifying the debt when he filed his complaint.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Echols v. Cavalry Portfolio Services can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff attempted to have debts removed from his credit report by disputing them with the three major credit bureaus. The defendant was notified about the dispute and sent the plaintiff a letter verifying the debt. The plaintiff included the letter and copies of his credit card statements in his filings for this case. He alleged the defendant violated Section 1681n of the FCRA for willful noncompliance of the statute’s requirements. He also alleged the defendant violated Section 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, which requires a plaintiff to establish a dispute regarding the accuracy of information from the credit reporting agency, the notice of dispute from the credit reporting agency to the furnisher, and the furnisher’s failure to conduct an investigation.
But, as the defendant noted, the plaintiff never produced any evidence to demonstrate that it failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the dispute. “Simply put, Plaintiff has made no plausible allegation that CPS violated the FCRA,” wrote Judge John Ross of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiff’s “response to the motion for summary judgment does not make any relevant factual allegations as to [the defendant’s] investigation or furnishment of information.”
