Krosch v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Background

Troy Krosch sued several credit-reporting agencies and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The opinion addresses only Experian Information Solution, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The caption identified Experian Information Solution, LLC, but Experian stated in its answer that its name was Experian Information Solution, Inc.

Krosch alleged that his Nationstar mortgage account was missing from his credit reports. He claimed that Experian violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to report the mortgage, removing or deleting it, and reporting multiple Nationstar credit inquiries without a permissible purpose. He also claimed under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i that Experian failed to reasonably reinvestigate his disputes about the missing mortgage account and the credit inquiries.

The opinion states that Krosch received reports from Equifax and Trans Union in May 2019 and noticed that the Nationstar mortgage was missing or inaccurately reported. The complaint did not make a similar allegation about a report Krosch received from Experian. In July 2019, however, Krosch disputed the Nationstar reporting with Experian. Experian responded that it could not honor his request to place credit information on his report. Krosch alleged that Experian did not evaluate his information or reasonably verify the reporting.

Legal Standards and Analysis

A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is evaluated under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief.

Section 1681e(b) claim. Section 1681e(b) requires a consumer-reporting agency to use reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of information in a consumer report. The court explained that a viable claim requires a plausible allegation that Experian reported inaccurate credit information and failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy.

Experian argued that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require a credit-reporting agency to include every account or tradeline in a report. The court agreed that the statute does not impose an affirmative duty to add all credit data. The court also considered, without deciding whether it controlled, the broader possibility that an omission could make a report materially misleading.

Even under that broader standard, the court held that Krosch’s claim failed. Krosch’s complaint did not allege facts showing that the information Experian reported was materially misleading. The complaint mainly alleged that Experian failed to include the Nationstar mortgage account, and the court stated that a credit report is not inaccurate or materially misleading simply because it does not mention a particular tradeline. The complaint also did not allege the credit-line inquiries that Krosch discussed in his brief.

Section 1681i claim. Section 1681i requires a credit-reporting agency to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes the completeness or accuracy of information contained in the consumer’s file. The court stated that a claim under this provision requires the plaintiff to identify information in the agency’s file and show that the information was inaccurate.

The court held that Krosch’s § 1681i claim failed for the same basic reason as his § 1681e(b) claim: he did not allege an inaccurate item of information. His claim was based on Experian’s alleged failure to include the Nationstar mortgage account, rather than on inaccurate information that Experian had reported. The court also rejected Krosch’s argument that Nationstar’s credit inquiries showed that the mortgage relationship remained in Experian’s file. The complaint did not address the contents of his Experian file or refer to those inquiries, and it repeatedly alleged that Nationstar had stopped reporting the mortgage to the credit-reporting agencies.

Disposition

The court granted Experian’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed the First and Second Claims against Experian without prejudice. The opinion states that Krosch’s claims against Nationstar and Trans Union had previously been dismissed by stipulation, but this order did not rule on those claims.