Taylor v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 2:2015cv00006 - Document 41 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendant Georgia Power Company's 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment and to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 11/18/2016. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor v. Equifax Information Services, LLC Doc. 41 Kit States! IBtsitrtct Conrt for tfie ^ontliem Biotnct of(f^eorgta Pntitsdoirk Btbtoton CYNTHIA W. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, V. CV^215-06 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant Georgia Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 33). Power The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. For the reasons stated below, Georgia Power Company's Motion is GRANTED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This case arises from a dispute over Plaintiff Cynthia W. Taylor's electric bill for Georgia. Dkt. No. 33 p. 2. her home in Brunswick, Plaintiff was billed a monthly fee for power services to her home. moved out by July 2010. previous Id. Plaintiff and her son Dkt. No. 35 p. 2. However, she failed to notify Defendant Georgia Power Company C'GPC") of her move and did not cancel her account. Dkt. No. 33-2 at 83:4-6. D72A ev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff paid GPC with a $600 check, which she believed to be payment in full. of funds. This check ultimately bounced for lack Dkt. No. 33-2 at 49:5-6. Plaintiff received a bill from GPC. 6. Dkt. No. 33-2 at 83:4- Plaintiff provided her explanation as to why she did not owe the full bill to one of GPCs employees at its Brunswick office. Id. Plaintiff claims the excess bill was due to some confusion regarding her business account versus her personal account, and to embezzlement issues caused by her now-deceased accountant.^ Dkt. No. 33 p. 2. September 29, 2010. After reported several her GPC disconnected Plaintiff's efforts account multiple Plaintiff as collections from on Dkt. No. 33 p. 3. to collect delinquent Plaintiff's to Equifax, reporting agency CCRA"), on February 28, 2011. sent power November letters 2010 to to March various 2011. bill, a GPC credit p. 4. addresses p. GPC of 3-4. Plaintiff ultimately discovered the delinquent accoxmt on her credit report. owe anything She contacted Equifax to report that she did not under the account. notified GPC of the dispute. p. 5. Equifax then Id. ^ The Court notes that identity theft and fraud are not at issue in this case. The record does not reflect that Plaintiff ever conveyed to GPC that her identity had been stolen or that her accountant was fraudulently using her accoxints to pay the GPC bill at issue. GPC tasked with its revenue investigating recovery specialist, Plaintiff's investigation entailed dispute. Sandy Evers, Id. Evers' verifying Plaintiff's name, birth date, social security number, and amount owed on the account. Dkt. No. that 33-3 H 14. On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff owed $1,275.87 on her account. Evers reported Plaintiff asserts that this balance is incorrect and that she does not owe anything more than the $600 that she originally attempted to pay. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff initially filed County Magistrate Court. suit against Equifax Dkt. No. 1. timely Notice of Removal on January 7, in Glynn Equifax then filed a 2015. ]^. Shortly thereafter. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Add a Party Defendant, which the Court granted on June 22, 2015. 9, 10. Dkt. Nos. Plaintiff proceeded to add GPC as a party and file an Amended Complaint on June 26, 2015. Dkt. No. 11. On July 30, 2015, GPC filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 13), which the parties fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 15, 17. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Equifax (Dkt. No. 21) on December 10, 2015, which this Court granted on December 11, 2015. GPC filed a Motion to Dismiss in July 2015. Dkt. No. 23. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against GPC as a CRA, but allowed Plaintiff's other claims to go forward. GPC is the only remaining defendant in this matter. GPC filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on these remaining claims on August 17, 2016. LEGAL STANDARD The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating fact. the absence of a genuine issue of material Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To satisfy this burden, the movant must show the court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. at 325. If the moving party discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of fact does exist. (1986). Anderson The v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 nonmovant may satisfy this burden in two ways; First, the nonmovant ^^may show that the record in fact contains supporting evidence, sufficient to withstand a directed verdict motion, which was ^overlooked or ignored' by the moving party, who has thus failed to meet the initial burden of showing an absence of evidence." Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 332 (Brennan, J., dissenting)) . forward directed with additional verdict evidence motion evidentiary deficiency." Second, the nonmovant ''may come at sufficient trial Id. at 1117. based to on withstand the a alleged Where the nonmovant instead attempts to carry this burden with nothing more ^^than a repetition of his conclusional allegations, summary judgment for the defendants [is] not only proper but required." Morris v. Ross, 663 F,2d 1032, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1981). DISCUSSION Plaintiff brings claims under the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. C'FCRA"). 11.) The FCRA applies to three Fair Credit Reporting (See generally Dkt. No. types of entities: consumer reporting agencies, users of consumer reports, and furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies. Chipka v. Bank of Amer., 355 F. App'x 380, 382 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b, 1681m, 1681S-2). It is undisputed that GPC is a ''furnisher of information" and therefore must only comply with the duties previously Dkt. No. imposed on dismissed 26. Thus, furnishers Plaintiff's the by the FCRA. non-furnisher Court analyzes The FCRA Court claims. the FCRA only as it applies to furnishers. The FCRA imposes two duties on GPC. provide accurate information to CRAs. Second, furnishers must investigate First, furnishers must 15 U.S.C. § 1681S-2(a). all disputed after receiving notice of a dispute from a CRA. 1681s-2(b). information 15 U.S.C. § The FCRA does not provide a private right of action when a furnisher submits false information to a CRA in violation of Section 1681s-2(a). 641, 642 n.4 Green v. RBS Nat^l Bank, 288 F. App'x {11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). By contrast, a private right of action exists when a furnisher violates Section 1681s-2(b), ^^but only if the furnisher received notice of the consumer's dispute from a consumer reporting agency." at 642 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681S-2(b)(1)). As the Court has already held. Plaintiff cannot state a claim since under Section 1681s-2(a). it is Plaintiff's undisputed dispute. that Section Dkt. No. 26 p. 8. GPC did 1681s-2(b) receive still However, notice applies. of To prevail under Section 1681s-2(b), the plaintiff must: allege and establish that [s]he notified a consumer reporting agency that [s]he disputed the completeness or accuracy of information in [her] credit report that was furnished by defendant, the credit reporting agency gave notice of plaintiff's dispute to defendant as a furnisher, and defendant did any one conduct of a the following: reasonable (1) failed investigation of to the identified dispute(s); (2) failed to review all relevant information provided by the credit reporting agency; (3) failed to report the results of its investigation to the credit reporting agency; or (4) if an item of information was found to be it could not disputed by plaintiff inaccurate, incomplete, or be verified after any reinvestigation, failed to modify, delete, or permanently block the reporting of that item of information. Ware v. Bank of Amer. Corp., 9 F. Supp. 3d 1329, 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (citing Howard v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., No. CV 109-156, 2012 WL 1850922, at *4 (S.D. Ga. May 21, 2012) {citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681S-2(b))). Plaintiff assertion appears that to GPC base failed her to claim entirely conduct a on the '"reasonable" investigation under Section 1681s-2(b). Dkt. No. 35 pp. 7-12. Indeed, investigation the "reasonableness" of GPCs is the standard by which the Court determines whether a violation of the FCRA occurred. Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Inc., 827 Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that GPCs investigation was unreasonable. Chiang v. Verizon New Eng., Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2010); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2009). The Eleventh Circuit has found that a reasonable investigation is one that "verif[ies] the disputed information, and report[s] to the CRAs that the information has been verified." "When a furnisher reports that disputed information has been verified, the question of whether the furnisher behaved reasonably will turn sufficient evidence information was to true." on whether support the the This furnisher conclusion question, acquired that the however, "is a factual question, and it will normally be reserved for trial." Id. Nonetheless, a furnisher "need not do more than verify that the reported information is consistent with the information in its records" for an investigation to be reasonable. Howard v. Pinnacle Credit Servs., LLC, No. 4:09-CV-85, 2010 WL 2600753^ at *3 (M.D. Ga. June 24, 2010). Indeed, the Court looks only to whether or not the furnisher reviewed all the necessary information it had in its possession at the time of the investigation. Knight v. Navient, T.T.C, No. 5;14-CV-424, 2016 WL 915192, at *6 (M.D. Ga. March 4, 2016). The scope of the furnisher's investigation may be narrow if the plaintiff provides only ^'scant information" regarding the nature of the dispute. Howard, 2010 WL 2600753, at *3. The Court concludes that there is no genuine dispute as to whether the GPC conducted Section 1681s-2(b). a reasonable investigation under The undisputed facts show that GPC reviewed all of the information it had in its possession and verified Plaintiff's name, birth date, social security number, and amount owed on the account. Plaintiff has Dkt. No. 33-3 t 14. failed to provide any evidence that the investigation was unreasonable beyond stating that she told a GPC employee that she did not owe on the account.^ p. 9. Dkt. No. 35 She failed to provide any additional information to GPC which it could have included in its investigation. ^ The Court notes that this assertion appears to have been incorrect. Plaintiff in fact does owe on this account, though the amount owed appears to be in dispute. Dkt. No. 33-2 49:5-6. 8 Defendant reviewed all of regarding Plaintiff's dispute. information GPC received the information it received Further, considering the scant regarding the nature of Plaintiff s dispute, the scope of its review was reasonable. Plaintiff largely relies on the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Hinkle Circuit to support found that her argument. the In Hinkle, defendant CRA's the Eleventh investigation was unreasonable because the CRA did not verify the information it received from the original creditor. However, Hinkle is distinguishable Hinkle, 827 F.3d at 1302. from this action because Hinkle involved a CRA rather than an original creditor. Id. That case turned on the fact that the CRA did not ''seek out and verify" its inforroation from the original creditor. This is plainly not an issue in this case, as GPC is the original creditor. Further, information GPC Plaintiff should has have failed verified to or point any to any additional information it should have obtained. Instead, Plaintiff relies on the fact that she informed GPC that she "did not absolutely no money." open or use" a GPC Dkt. No. 35 p. 5-7. account and "owed However, Plaintiff also contradictorily asserts that she paid $600 "for the entire balance owed" on the account. at 2. In fact it appears that Plaintiff acknowledges that she owed money on the account but mistakenly believed she has already paid what she believed 9 to be the entire balance. The record is undisputed that Plaintiff paid nothing on this account because the $600 check that she Therefore, wrote the ultimately Court gives bounced. no Dkt. weight 33-2 the fact to 49:3-16. that she incorrectly notified GPC that she ^'owed absolutely no money. This is fatal to Plaintiff's claim as Plaintiff provides little other evidence in support of her claim. GPC verified that the the information it had account and that was indeed a debt owed Plaintiff's on the with account. Plaintiff points to nothing, more that GPC could have done to conduct a more reasonable investigation. Therefore, the Court finds that GPCs investigation was reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment in this matter. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above. Defendant Georgia Power Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 33) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment and to close this case. SO ORDERED, this 18th day of November, 2016^ LISA GOteJBEY'WOOD, fHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ^ The Court recognizes that there very well may be a dispute as to the actual amount owed here. Nonetheless this is beyond the scope this claim. The Court looks only to whether GPCs investigation was reasonable with the information it could have obtained at the time of the investigation. 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
