Cowley v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al, No. 2:2018cv02846 - Document 85 (W.D. Tenn. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting 71 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 11/07/2019. (kah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ccount because, pursuant to the Agreement, Cowley was obligated to make twenty-four (24) equal monthly payments in the amount of $72.04 to UCFS to repay the principal owed plus interest. If anything, the reported amount underreported Cowley’s obligation by $0.04/month. (ECF No. 73 at PageID 450.) This evidence is undisputed. And Plaintiff seeks to manufacture a dispute of material fact by asserting that $72.00 was an inaccurate amount because she defaulted on the payments and Defendant accelerated the debt. (ECF No. 78 at PageID 509–10.) But Plaintiff provides no evidence in support of her claim that Defendant’s report was inaccurate, nor does she cite case law supporting this assertion. (Id.) So Plaintiff effectively failed to dispute UCFSC’s factual claim that the $72.00 scheduled monthly payment amount was accurate. Given Plaintiff’s failure to rebut Defendant’s evidence, the Court finds that there is no dispute as to material fact about the accuracy of UCFSC’s report on Plaintiff’s scheduled monthly payment. 7 What is more, UCFSC’s report here was not materially misleading because Plaintiff submitted no proof that the report misled a creditor. Plaintiff provides only her opinion without admissible evidence that the allegedly inaccurate report created a misleading impression of her consumer credit file for credit reporting agencies. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 5.) And the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly found that a personal opinion, by itself, cannot support an inaccuracy claim under the FCRA. See, e.g., Dickens v. Trans Union Corp., 18 F. App’x 315, 318 (6th Cir. 2001) (“mere speculation . . . without more, is insufficient”); Bailey v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 13-cv-10377, 2013 WL 3305710 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013) (conclusory allegations that the report is inaccurate and misleading are insufficient); Elsady v. Rapid Global Bus. Sols., Inc., No. 09-cv-11659, 2010 WL 2740154 (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2010) (a plaintiff must at least show that the defendant misled a creditor). Plaintiff has therefore showed no inaccuracy here. B. Alleged Failure to Conduct an Adequate Investigation Plaintiff also argues that Defendant failed to conduct an adequate investigation following the receipt of a dispute letter as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). (ECF No. 1 at PageID 6– 7.) But a threshold showing of inaccuracy or incompleteness is necessary for a successful claim under § 1681s-2(b). Pittman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 901 F.3d 619, 630 (6th Cir. 2018). As mentioned above, she failed to show inaccuracy or incompleteness. Since Plaintiff did not meet her threshold burden here, her FCRA claim fails as a matter of law. The Court therefore GRANTS summary judgment as to this claim. II. Defendant’s Counterclaim for Breach of Contract UCFSC also moves for summary judgment as to its Counterclaim for breach of contract. (ECF No. 71.) UCFSC claims that Plaintiff signed a contract agreeing to make 24 equal monthly payments of $72.04. (Id.) But Plaintiff failed to make those payments and still owes UCFSC an 8 outstanding balance of $867.68 plus interest. (ECF No. 73 at PageID 449–50.) UCFSC also alleges that it is entitled to reasonable attorney fees plus court costs under the Agreement. (ECF No. 73-1 at PageID 453.) Plaintiff acknowledges that she indeed agreed to make monthly payments and then defaulted on that obligation. (ECF No. 78 at PageID 531.) To establish a claim for breach of contract in Tennessee, a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of an enforceable contract, (2) nonperformance breaching that contract, and (3) damages caused by that breach. C&W Asset Acquisition, LLC v. Oggs, 230 S.W.3d 671, 676–77 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (citing ARC LifeMed, Inc. v. AMC—Tenn., Inc., 183 S.W.3d 1, 26 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)). Plaintiff neither contests that the Agreement is enforceable, nor does she contend that she did not breach that Agreement. (ECF Nos. 78 at PageID 530–31; 73-1 at PageID 452–53.) The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff breached an enforceable contract. (ECF Nos. 78 at PageID 530–31; 73-1 at PageID 452–53.) Given this, the Court finds summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s liability for breach of contract is appropriate. So the only remaining issue is the amount of the outstanding balance. UCFSC claims it is $867.68 plus interest and that the proof is undisputed because it submitted the declaration of UCFSC’s Chief Compliance Officer. (ECF Nos. 73; 72 at PageID 446.) Plaintiff is not so sure about the amount and seeks discovery to determine the amount. (ECF No. 78 at PageID 531.) All in all, the Court GRANTS summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s liability for breach of contract. The Court will decide the amount of damages owed to Defendant later. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the Court GRANTS UCFSC’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims and GRANTS UCFSC’s motion for summary judgment only on Plaintiff’s 9 liability for breach of contract. The Court will decide the amount of damages owed to Defendant at a later time. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of November, 2019. s/Thomas L. Parker THOMAS L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
