United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE JOHN J. TUCHI UNITED STATES OH DISTRICT JUDGE.
issue is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
26, DMSJ), supported by Defendant's Statement of Facts
(Doc. 27, DSOF), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
30) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 36); and
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28, PMSJ),
supported by Plaintiff's Statement of Facts (Doc. 29,
PSOF), to which Defendant filed a Response (Doc. 32) and
Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 35). For the reasons that
follow, the Court grants Defendant's Motion and denies
Complaint (Doc. 1) alleges a single violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§
1692 et seq. Before the Court are the parties'
cross motions for summary judgment.
2017, Plaintiff obtained his credit report from the three
major credit reporting agencies and noticed that Defendant, a
debt collector and data furnisher, was reporting a delinquent
account. Around December 6, 2017, Defendant received a
letter stating that Plaintiff disputed the
reported account. (PSOF, Ex. 1.) On December 27, Defendant
electronically communicated to the credit reporting agencies
an “XB” compliance code for Plaintiff's
account. (DSOF, Ex. E; Ex. B.) Data furnishers, such as
Defendant, are required to use Compliance Condition Codes
when communicating to the reporting agencies the status of
accounts. An XB code signals to the agencies that the account
is in dispute. (DSOF, Ex. B at 2.) Defendant, who reports to
the agencies on the 8th and 27th of every month, again
reported an XB code on January 8, 2018. (DSOF, Ex. E.)
January 11, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter stating that it
had completed its investigation into the dispute and
determined that the reported account was valid. (DSOF, Ex.
F.) It attached a copy of two statements reflecting a
delinquent credit card account that Plaintiff had opened with
Capital One Bank. Plaintiff admitted that he received this
letter. (DSOF, Ex. D at 7.) Nothing in the record indicates
whether Plaintiff followed up with Defendant or continued to
dispute the debt.
completing its investigation in January, Defendant began
submitting an “XC” compliance code to the credit
reporting agencies. (DSOF, Ex. E; Ex. B.) An XC code informs
the reporting agencies that the data furnisher has completed
the investigation into the disputed account but that the
consumer disagrees with the outcome of the investigation.
Defendant continued to submit an XC code twice monthly until
Plaintiff brought this lawsuit. (DSOF, Ex. E; Ex. B.)
2, 2018-three weeks before filing suit-Plaintiff entered into
a payment plan with Defendant for the very debt that is the
subject of this litigation. (DSOF, Ex. G.) Plaintiff pulled
his credit report three days later and discovered that
Experian was still reporting Plaintiff's outstanding and
past-due debt with Defendant. On July 25, the day he filed
this suit, Plaintiff made his first payment to Defendant in
accordance with the payment plan. (DSOF, Ex. G.)
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 non-moving 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. 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).