Mary Reyes v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.C., et al.

Sherman, Texas consumer law lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on Fari Credit Reporting Act violation theories.





On October 21, 2020, Equifax sent Reyes a letter explaining it had

researched the new Citibank account and "verified that this item belongs to

you.” It also provided the account information reported in her file: the new

Citibank account was a charged-off account with an outstanding balance of

$3,312, the last payment was made in October 2019, and the account was

closed at the consumer's request.3



Reyes sued Equifax alleging it negligently and willfully violated 15

U.S.C. § 1681e by failing to follow reasonable procedures in reporting

information, as well as § 1681i by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation

of her dispute. Equifax moved for summary judgment, arguing Reyes had

failed to present evidence showing that (1) the information it reported was

inaccurate, (2) it failed to follow reasonable procedures or conduct a

reasonable reinvestigation of her disputes, and (3) it caused her any damages.

Equifax also argued that her FCRA suit was an impermissible collateral

attack involving a legal dispute between her and Citibank.



* * *



"Concerned by 'abuses in the credit reporting industry,' Congress

enacted the FCRA to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting that protects

consumers while meeting the needs of commerce.” Hammer v. Equifax Info.

Servs., L.L.C., 974 F.3d 564, 567 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). "To

achieve those goals, the Act regulates the consumer reporting agencies that

compile and disseminate personal information about consumers.”

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 418 (2021); see 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681a(f) (defining "consumer reporting agency”). The FCRA requires

consumer reporting agencies to "adopt reasonable procedures for meeting

the needs of commerce for consumer credit . . . in a manner which is fair and

equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy,

relevancy, and proper utilization of such information.” Id. at § 1681(b).

"Where possible, courts construe these obligations consistently with the

Act's 'ambitious objective . . . which uses expansive terms to describe the

adverse effects of unfair and inaccurate credit reporting and the

esponsibilities of consumer reporting agencies.'” Hammer, 974 F.3d at 567

(quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 62, (2007)); see also

Wagner v. TRW, Inc., No. 97–30601, 1998 WL 127812, at *1 (5th Cir. Mar. 4,

1998) (unpublished) ("The FCRA is to be liberally construed in favor of the

consumer.”). A consumer can bring a civil action against a credit reporting

agency for negligent or willful violations of its statutory obligations. See id. at

§ 1681n (willful noncompliance); id. at § 1681o (negligent noncompliance).

Motion for summary judgment granted.



Affirmed