United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable John J. Tuchi United States District Judge.
issue is Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70, Mot.), to which
Plaintiff Kyle Keller filed a Response (Doc. 72, Resp.), and
Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 74, Reply). The Court elects to
resolve the Motion without oral argument. See LRCiv
September 1, 2005, Plaintiff opened a second mortgage through
GMAC Mortgage for $67, 040.00. As of August 2009, Plaintiff
owed approximately $64, 171.55 on that mortgage. Plaintiff
stopped making payments on the loan after January 9, 2009 and
GMAC eventually offered to settle the account for $5, 293.72.
In the offer letter, GMAC indicated that it would view
acceptance as “full and final satisfaction of [the]
account” and that it would “cancel the Note
and/or Credit Agreement.” Plaintiff accepted the
settlement and paid GMAC on August 27, 2009.
April 28, 2015, Plaintiff opened a dispute with Defendant
regarding the GMAC trade line. Defendant is a consumer
reporting agency as that term is defined under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681a(f) and regularly engages in the practice of
assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the
purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties. As
such, Plaintiff requested that Defendant remove the notation
that payment was late by 120 days and that the account was
“Settled-less than full balance.” Plaintiff also
requested that the account be reported as “satisfied in
full.” Plaintiff's dispute included the July 22,
2009 settlement option letter from GMAC and correspondence
confirming payment in accordance with those terms.
response to the dispute, Defendant sent an Automated Consumer
Dispute Verification to Ocwen-who had assumed control of the
mortgage account from GMAC in the interim-attaching the
documents Plaintiff provided. On May 11, 2015, Ocwen
responded, maintaining that the account was paid in full for
less than the full balance owed.
11, 2015, Defendant provided Plaintiff with the
reinvestigation results, which showed that the GMAC Mortgage
trade was still reported as “account paid in full for
less than full balance.” Plaintiff then brought the
current action against Defendant, as well as other credit
reporting agencies (TransUnion and Equifax) and Ocwen.
Plaintiff settled its dispute as to all other Defendants.
Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is appropriate when: (1) the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact; and (2) after
viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party,
the movant is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N.
Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir. 1987). Under this
standard, “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under governing [substantive] law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A “genuine issue” of material fact arises
only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must
regard as true the non-moving party's evidence, if it is
supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg, 815
F.2d at 1289. However, the non-moving party may not merely
rest on its pleadings; it must produce some significant
probative evidence tending to contradict the moving
party's allegations, thereby creating a material question
of fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57 (holding that
the plaintiff must present affirmative evidence in order to
defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment);
First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co.,
391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968).
summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying solely
on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.”
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
“Summary judgment must be entered ‘against a
party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial.'” United States v. Carter, 906 F.2d
1375, 1376 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Celotex, 477
U.S. at 322). “As a general matter, the plaintiff in an
employment discrimination action need produce very little
evidence in order to overcome an employer's motion for
summary judgment.” Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis,
Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000).
Fair Credit Reporting Act
enacted the FCRA to ensure fair and accurate credit
reporting, to promote efficiency in the banking system, and
to protect consumer privacy. Gorman v. Wolpoff &