Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA

Background

Khalilah Suluki alleged that her mother opened and used bank accounts in Suluki’s name without her knowledge or permission. One of those accounts was a Credit One credit card issued in Suluki’s name in November 2017. Suluki discovered the accounts in 2019 after she was denied an apartment and reviewed her credit reports. She disputed the Credit One account with credit-reporting agencies, which sent the disputes to Credit One for investigation.

Credit One investigated the disputes and concluded that the account belonged to Suluki. The record showed that the account had received regular payments, including payments from a bank account Suluki shared with her mother. Suluki signed an affidavit stating that she had never applied for the card and that her mother had opened it without her permission, but she did not provide the police or other law-enforcement identity-theft report Credit One requested. Credit One’s records also included a call in which Suluki’s mother said that she and Suluki had opened the account together and that Suluki had authorized her to do so.

Claims and motions

Suluki sued Credit One under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer credit information. She alleged that Credit One failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving disputes from the credit-reporting agencies and failed to properly report the investigation results. She sought summary judgment—judgment without a trial when no genuine dispute of important fact exists—on the accuracy of Credit One’s reporting, the reporting of investigation results, and the reasonableness of Credit One’s investigation.

Credit One sought summary judgment on the investigation and on Suluki’s claim that its conduct was willful and therefore could support punitive damages. The court considered each motion separately and viewed the evidence favorably to the party opposing that motion.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that whether Suluki gave her mother permission to open the account was a genuine factual dispute. Suluki and her mother gave conflicting accounts, and Credit One presented the mother’s testimony and a call recording supporting Credit One’s position. Because deciding which witness was credible is generally a jury’s role, the court denied Suluki’s request for judgment that Credit One’s reporting was inaccurate as a matter of law.

The court also rejected Suluki’s claim that Credit One violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to tell the credit-reporting agencies that she continued to dispute the account. The court explained that this duty falls under a statutory provision that government officials, rather than private consumers, must enforce. Suluki’s request for judgment on that theory was denied, and the court dismissed that claim.

As to the investigation, the court concluded that Suluki had not identified additional information or investigative steps that would have led Credit One to determine that she had not authorized her mother to open the account. The court reasoned that an investigation into the application’s internet address, for example, would not establish whether Suluki had given her mother permission. The court therefore concluded that Suluki could not show that a different investigation would have prevented the damages she claimed.

The court separately concluded that Suluki had not produced evidence showing that Credit One knowingly or recklessly violated the statute. Her conclusory statements were not enough to establish willful conduct or support punitive damages.

Disposition

The court denied Suluki’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and granted Credit One’s motion for summary judgment in full. The court stated that Suluki had not demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact concerning her entitlement to any remedy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and dismissed the action in its entirety. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.