United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division
LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE.
Tamika Seay, a consumer, filed this lawsuit seeking redress
of alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
Now before the Court are Defendants Trans Union, LLC
(“Trans Union”) and Western-Shamrock
Corporation's (“Shamrock”) Motions to Dismiss
(Docs. 16, 18), which the Court converted to motions for
summary judgment (Doc. 31). After reviewing the pleadings,
briefs, and other evidentiary materials presented, the Court
concludes that there is no genuine dispute of the material
facts and finds that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
alleges that Shamrock is inaccurately reporting a tradeline
(“Errant Tradeline”) on her Trans Union credit
disclosure. (Doc. 1, ¶ 7). According to Plaintiff, her Trans
Union credit report erroneously reflects a scheduled monthly
payment to Shamrock of $42.00, even though the account was
paid and closed with no continuing obligation to make monthly
payments. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 10).
contends that she first learned of the Errant Tradeline on
June 11, 2018, when she received a copy of her credit
disclosures from Trans Union. (Id. at ¶ 11).
Plaintiff disputed the Errant Tradeline to Trans Union by
letter dated September 26, 2018. (Id. at ¶ 12).
In her letter, Plaintiff noted that the account in dispute
was closed and requested that Trans Union revise her credit
report to reflect a $0.00 monthly payment. (Id. at
¶ 13). Plaintiff alleges that Trans Union forwarded her
consumer dispute to Shamrock. (Id. at ¶ 14). On
October 4, 2018, Plaintiff received the results of Trans
Union's investigation, which she contends showed that
Trans Union and Shamrock refused to conduct a proper
investigation of Plaintiff's dispute and to report the
scheduled monthly payment as $0.00 on the Errant Tradeline.
(Id. at ¶¶ 15, 19-20, 25-26, 59, 66).
result of Defendants' alleged negligent and/or willful
failure to comply with the FCRA's requirements regarding
the investigation of disputed accounts, Plaintiff claims that
she has suffered both emotional damage and damage to her
credit. (Id. at ¶ 17). She further states that
she has experienced undue stress and anxiety and that she has
been unable to improve her financial situation or to obtain
more favorable credit terms because of Defendants'
failure to correct the errors in her credit file.
filed her Complaint on December 19, 2018. In lieu of filing
an answer, Trans Union filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 16).
Attached to Trans Union's Motion was the Declaration of
Don Wagner, a Trans Union employee, who attested to how the
Shamrock tradeline was reporting at the time Plaintiff's
claim arose. (Doc. 16-3). Shamrock also relied on the
contents of this Declaration, in part, in support of its
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 18). After reviewing the motions and
the Wagner Declaration, the Court found it appropriate to
convert the pending motions to dismiss to motions for summary
judgment. (Doc. 31). The Court allowed 14 days for the
parties to submit any additional pertinent information.
(Id. at p. 3). Defendants jointly submitted
supplemental authority in support of their motions. (Doc.
32). Plaintiff provided no further information.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
“shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “A party asserting that a
fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support that
assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in
the record, including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.”
party seeking summary judgment “always bears the
initial responsibility of informing the district court of the
basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of a material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323
(internal quotation omitted). If the movant meets this
burden, the burden shifts to the party opposing summary
judgment to go beyond the pleadings and to present specific
evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material
fact, or that the movant is not entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Id. at 324-26. “If the record
presents factual issues, the court must not decide them; it
must deny the motion and proceed to trial.” Herzog
v. Castle Rock Entm't, 193 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th
Cir. 1999). But, when “the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
non-moving party, ” summary judgment for the moving
party is proper.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
seeks damages for injuries she purportedly sustained as a
result of Trans Union and Shamrock's alleged failure to
investigate and to correct inaccuracies in her credit report
in violation of the FCRA. More specifically, Plaintiff
contends that despite being informed that her credit report
should reflect a $0.00 monthly payment, Defendants continue
to report a positive scheduled monthly payment for an account
that has been paid off and closed. In order to recover under
the FCRA, Plaintiff first must demonstrate that there was an
inaccuracy in her credit report. Because Plaintiff cannot
satisfy this essential component, her claims against each
Defendant fail as a matter of law.
Trans Union, LLC
Union moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims
because Plaintiff has failed to establish that her Shamrock
account was reporting inaccurately on her credit report.
Trans Union argues that in the ...