A District Court judge in Washington has largely granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act related to how it reported information about the plaintiff’s mortgage, which was in forbearance, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ruling pares back a wide-ranging complaint that accused the defendant of improperly reporting mortgage delinquencies during and after pandemic-related forbearance periods, while allowing a narrow portion of the FCRA claims tied to earlier reporting activity to move forward.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that he entered into a COVID-19 forbearance plan while current on his mortgage and that the defendant nonetheless reported his account as severely delinquent to consumer reporting agencies. According to the complaint, the alleged misreporting occurred across several periods, including between September 2022 and February 2023, as well as later in December 2024 and June 2025.
- The plaintiff claimed he repeatedly disputed the information, that the defendant admitted errors at one point, and that the reporting caused significant credit score damage and the denial of refinancing and other home equity products.
- The defendant moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that some allegations were time-barred, others were contradicted by the written terms of the forbearance and trial modification agreements, and that several statutory and state-law claims were legally defective.
The ruling: Judge Tana Lin of the District Court for the Western District of Washington agreed with the defendant on most issues. She dismissed all claims based on alleged delinquencies reported in December 2024 and June 2025, finding that the written forbearance and trial modification agreements showed the plaintiff remained delinquent under their express terms. Judge Lin noted that the documents directly contradicted the complaint’s allegations and that the plaintiff failed to plead facts showing he cured the delinquency.
- As the judge explained, “The plain language of the forbearance and trial modification plans related to Defendant’s reporting of Plaintiff’s delinquencies in December 2024 and June 2025 directly contradicts the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.” As a result, the court could not reasonably infer liability for those reporting periods.
- Judge Lin also dismissed claims brought under FCRA provisions that do not provide a private right of action, as well as all state-law claims, holding they were preempted by the FCRA.
- However, the court allowed one slice of the case to survive. Claims related to alleged misreporting between September 2022 and February 2023 were not dismissed at this stage because statute of limitations issues could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Those claims remain pending, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint as to that limited period.
