JACKSON v. BANK OF AMERICA (2022)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Trans Unions LLC's (collectively “the CRA Defendants”)¹ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. # 48).² The matter has been fully briefed (Docs. # 48, 51, and 52) and is ripe for review. The Motion (Doc. # 48) is due to be granted.

This case started in state court with the parties' roles reversed. Then-Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) sued then-Defendant Jackson for alleged debts totaling approximately $66,000. (Doc. # 28 ¶ 12). The parties reached a purported settlement in February 2018 but were unable to reach a finalized written agreement. (Id. ¶ 17). They still had not done so in October 2018; nevertheless, the state court dismissed the case with prejudice in an order outlining the parties' material terms. (Doc. # 28 ¶ 19; Doc. # 48 at 2).³ The order specified that then-Plaintiff would make two payments. As the order acknowledged, he had already made the first. (Doc. # 48 at 2). His second payment was scheduled for August 2019. (Id.; Doc. # 28 ¶ 24). So far, so good.

The settlement order, however, also called for “[BANA] to either delete the tradeline(s) or allow [Jackson] to dispute the tradeline(s) with the agreement that [BANA] will not respond to that (those) dispute(s).” (Doc. # 28 ¶ 19; Doc. # 48 at 2). But when? Now-Plaintiff Jackson disputed the tradelines twice before his second payment was due. (Doc. # 28 ¶ 30). In response to these disputes, the CRA Defendants allegedly contacted BANA who verified the tradelines. (Id. ¶ 34). Plaintiff perceived this to be a material breach that relieved him of making his August 2019 payment. (Id. ¶¶ 51-54). In September 2019, Plaintiff disputed the tradelines yet again. (Id. ¶ 35). This time he provided the court's dismissal order to the CRA Defendants. (Id. ¶ 36). He alleges that the CRA Defendants did not reinvestigate Plaintiff's disputes or forward them to BANA. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 39).

Plaintiff then brought this action. In addition to various claims against BANA, he alleges the CRA Defendants' failure to investigate his September 2019 dispute violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. (Doc. # 28 ¶¶ 100-06; see also Doc. # 51 at 3-4). Section 1681i(a)(1) provides that if a consumer disputes “the completeness or accuracy of any item” in his file, the consumer reporting agency must “conduct a reasonable investigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate[.]” Plaintiff alleges that the CRA Defendants conducted no investigation -- let alone a reasonable one -- into his September 2019 dispute. (Doc. # 28 ¶ 38). To state a claim under the statute, however, “the plaintiff must show that the agency's report contained factually inaccurate information.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 995 F.3d 937, 944 (11th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added). Credit reporting agencies have no obligation to investigate “legal disputes about the validity of the underlying debt they report.” Id. at 946 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).⁴

The CRA Defendants argue that Plaintiff's dispute falls into the latter category, meaning the claim against them should be dismissed. The court agrees. When Plaintiff presented the CRA Defendants the settlement order in October 2019, they would have had to determine when BANA's obligations regarding Plaintiff's tradelines were triggered—a clear legal question. In addition, the CRA Defendants would also have had to interpret the legal effect, if any, of Plaintiff's failure to make the second payment. It is perhaps unsurprising then that in this action Plaintiff is also suing Defendant BANA for breach of contract (Doc. # 28 at 78-86), while BANA is seeking a declaratory judgment and countersuing (Doc. # 29 at 19; Doc. # 13 at 15-17).⁵

Because Plaintiff presented a legal dispute, the CRA Defendants had no duty to investigate. Accordingly, the CRA Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 48) is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that the claims against Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Trans Unions LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This dismissal shall not affect any other right, claim or cause of action which Plaintiff has, or may have, against any remaining Defendant.

DONE and ORDERED this January 7, 2022.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All Defendants are movants except for Bank of America, N.A.

2.   “The standards for reviewing decisions on motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings are the same: ‘whether the count stated a claim for relief.’ ” Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC, 904 F.3d 1197, 1207 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 n.8 (11th Cir. 2002)). “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when no issues of material fact exist, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Cunningham v. District Attorney's Office for Escambia Cty., 592 F.3d 1237, 1255 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Andrx Pharm., Inc. v. Elan Corp., 421 F.3d 1227, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2005)).

3.   Because only an abridged version of the order appears in Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. # 28 ¶ 19), the court will rely on the unabridged version found in the CRA Defendants' Motion (Doc. # 48 at 2).

4.   Plaintiff also brings his claim under section 1681e(b), requiring consumer reporting agencies to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” about an individual. As with section 1681i(a)(1), claimants must demonstrate factual inaccuracy. See Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1156 (11th Cir. 1991).

5.   The settlement order stated, “Should either party fail to comply with the above terms, the other party may institute a new legal action[.]” (Doc. # 48 at 2).

R. DAVID PROCTOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE