and Submitted March 8, 2019 Phoenix, Arizona
from the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona G. Murray Snow, Chief District Judge, Presiding D.C.
Albert Mahl (argued), Law Offices of Edward A. Mahl, Troy,
Michigan; Trinette G. Kent, Kent Law Offices, Phoenix,
Arizona; for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Feder (argued), Jones Day, New York, New York; Jeremy S.
Close, John A. Vogt, and Richard J. Grabowski, Jones Day,
Irvine, California; for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Richard R. Clifton, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Michelle T.
Friedland, Circuit Judges.
Credit Reporting Act
panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in
favor of defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in
an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
credit repair organization sent letters to Experian, a
consumer reporting agency, on behalf of plaintiff, asserting
that several items in plaintiff's credit file were
incorrect and asking Experian to conduct a reinvestigation to
verify the items' accuracy.
panel held that, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, Experian was
not required to initiate a reinvestigation because plaintiff
did not "directly" notify it of the disputed items.
In addition, Experian did not act unreasonably in violation
of § 1681e(b).
CLIFTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Trinity Warner appeals the district's court's order
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee
Experian Information on Warner's claims that Experian
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Those claims arise
out of a series of letters that Go Clean Credit LLC, a credit
repair organization, sent to Experian on Warner's behalf.
The letters asserted that several items in Warner's
credit file were incorrect and asked Experian to conduct a
reinvestigation to verify the items' accuracy. Warner
played no role in drafting the letters, and he did not review
them before they were mailed. As a result, Warner never
confirmed that the disputes presented to Experian by Go Clean
Credit were legitimate.
receiving the letters sent by Go Clean Credit, Experian
informed Warner that it would not take further action unless
he personally contacted Experian. Warner now asserts that
Experian's refusal to reinvestigate violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. Experian, on the other hand, argues it
did not have to reinvestigate because Warner did not
communicate with Experian directly.
agree with Experian. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i is the relevant
statutory provision. It requires consumer reporting agencies
to reinvestigate disputed items in a consumer's credit
file if the consumer notifies the agency of the dispute
"directly." 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. Because Warner
played no part in drafting, finalizing, or sending the
letters Go Clean Credit sent to Experian on his behalf, those
letters did not come directly from him. Consequently, under
Section 1681i, Experian was not required to ...