Beseke v. Equifax Information Services LLC
- Donovan Frank
- 0:17-cv-04971
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Beseke v. Equifax, Judge Frank denied Equifax’s request to immediately appeal an earlier ruling in Beseke’s Fair Credit Reporting Act case.
Equifax’s request for immediate appellate review was denied; Beseke’s Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation was not certified for an interlocutory appeal.
What happened
Beseke v. Equifax Information Services LLC concerns claims that Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by reporting an old mortgage account, failing to include the date of first delinquency, and failing to reasonably reinvestigate disputed information. In an earlier order, the court granted Beseke’s partial summary-judgment motion in part and denied Equifax’s summary-judgment motion.
Equifax asked the court to allow an immediate appeal concerning whether it could be liable for reporting the mortgage account when it had not been separately notified that the account was placed for collection. Equifax argued that the issue affected the proposed class claims and conflicted with other legal authority. Beseke opposed the request, arguing that the issue was not a controlling legal question, would not speed up the case, and did not present substantial grounds for disagreement.
Judge Donovan W. Frank denied Equifax’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. He explained that the earlier ruling found Equifax had enough information to comply with the law, that an appeal would delay rather than advance the litigation because Beseke’s accuracy claim remained independent, and that Equifax had not shown a substantial legal disagreement warranting immediate review.
The detailed version
- Beseke v. Equifax Information Services LLC · No. 0:17-cv-04971
- Donovan Frank
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
Kurt A. Beseke sued Equifax Information Services LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He asserted three claims. Count I alleged that Equifax improperly reported information about his Chase Mortgage after the statutory reporting period. Count II alleged that Equifax failed to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports by not including a “Date of First Delinquency.” Count III alleged that Equifax failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation after Beseke disputed the accuracy of information about the mortgage.
The court previously granted in part Beseke’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied Equifax’s motion for summary judgment on all counts. The earlier order found that Equifax negligently violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s obsolescence provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(4). Whether the violation was willful remained a question for the jury, and the court found material factual disputes concerning Counts II and III.
Motion for Interlocutory Appeal
Equifax moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify the earlier order for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has entered a final judgment. Section 1292(b) permits certification only when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation.
Equifax’s proposed issue concerned whether it could be liable under § 1681c(a)(4) when it was not notified that Beseke’s mortgage account had been placed for collection. Beseke opposed certification.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Equifax had not shown that the earlier order presented a controlling legal question suitable for interlocutory review. The court said the earlier order did not hold that a consumer reporting agency’s knowledge about collection placement was irrelevant. Instead, it found that Chase had provided Equifax with the information required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that Equifax had enough information to comply with the statute but failed to do so.
The court also determined that immediate appellate review would delay rather than materially advance the litigation. Count II, concerning the failure to include the Date of First Delinquency and the accuracy of the reports, remained a distinct and viable claim regardless of whether Equifax violated the obsolescence provision. The court therefore concluded that the litigation would continue on Count II either way.
Finally, the court rejected Equifax’s argument that the earlier decision conflicted with other authority. It explained that the Sixth Circuit decision cited by Equifax predated an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act requiring Chase to provide the date when the delinquency began. The court also relied on the statute’s text, duties imposed on furnishers and consumer reporting agencies, Federal Trade Commission guidance, and a Seventh Circuit decision.
Disposition
The court found that Equifax failed to meet the heavy burden required for the extraordinary remedy of interlocutory certification. Judge Donovan W. Frank denied Equifax’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.