In a case that was defended by the team at Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, a District Court judge in Michigan has granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, after they were accused of not updating that the accounts in question were no longer being disputed.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Young v. Portfolio Recovery Associates et al can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff accused the defendants — three collection agencies — of not conducting proper investigations when they were notified by the credit reporting agencies that the accounts in question were no longer being disputed. The plaintiff had sent letters to the credit reporting agencies indicating that she was no longer disputing the tradelines in question.
Ultimately, the plaintiff neither provided enough information in her amended complaint to support her allegations, nor did she provide enough legal support for her claim that a request to remove a dispute notification triggers a furnisher’s duties under Section 1682s-2(b) of the FCRA to conduct a reasonable investigation, ruled Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Another fact that proved fatal to the plaintiff’s claims was that she never attempted to contact the furnishers directly to discuss the removal of the dispute notifications, Judge Edmunds noted.
“Plaintiff’s amended complaint is a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, a cause of action that does not fit squarely with the few facts she does allege,” Judge Edmunds wrote. “The allegations themselves are contradictory to identifying an inaccuracy.”
