A District Court judge in Michigan has granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because he did not suffer a concrete injury. This is a case involving a claim from plaintiffs that was pretty popular for a while and it demonstrates the importance of discovery.
The Background: The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, claiming it violated the FDCPA and state law in Michigan when it did not remove a dispute notation from the plaintiff’s credit report after his attorney, Credit Repair Lawyers of America, sent the defendant a letter indicating that the plaintiff no longer disputed the debt.
- The defendant conducted an investigation and decided not to remove the dispute notation because the original dispute said the account information was inaccurate and the subsequent letter from the attorney “did not raise a bona fide dispute requiring Defendant to further update Plaintiff’s credit report.”
- The plaintiff claimed that the dispute notation made it impossible for him to refinance his mortgage.
The Ruling: This is where the discovery part becomes important. While he testified in his deposition that the dispute notation was the reason why his mortgage refinancing application was denied, the lender’s denial letter that was sent to the plaintiff indicated it was “excessive obligations in relation” to his income that led to it not approving his application. The letter also contained a checked box that said “the decision was based on information obtained from an affiliate from an outside source other than a consumer reporting agency.”
- The plaintiff was also unable to demonstrate how the dispute notation on his credit report justified his claim that he had less disposable income, noted Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- “…the credit denial letter that Interfirst sent to Haver seems to indicate that the denial was not based on the TransUnion and Equifax disclosures at issue in this litigation, though his belief that the dispute comment played a role in the denial remains,” Judge Drain wrote.
