United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD B. HOGUE, Plaintiffs,
ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Defendants.
before the court is defendant Silver State Schools Credit
Union's (“Silver State”) motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff Richard B. Hogue
(“Hogue” or “plaintiff”) filed a
response (ECF No. 46), to which Silver State replied (ECF No.
also filed a motion to supplement its response to Silver
State's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61). Silver
State filed a response (ECF No. 62), to which plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 65).
before the court is plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 42). Silver State filed a response (ECF
No. 50), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 57).
instant dispute involves allegations that Silver State
erroneously reported plaintiff's derogatory credit
information to Experian in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the
“FCRA”). Plaintiff alleges Silver State failed to
investigate properly a credit dispute involving the reporting
of an auto loan discharged through bankruptcy. (ECF No. 42).
State furnishes information to consumer credit reporting
agencies (“CRAs”) like Experian Information
Solution, Inc. (“Experian”) (also named in the
suit). (ECF No. 43). Defendant Experian is a consumer
reporting agency that assembles and/or evaluates consumer
credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer
reports to third parties. (ECF No. 43).
filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
1301 et seq. on January 31, 2009. (ECF No. 43).
Plaintiff completed the bankruptcy on May 30, 2014 and
received a discharge from all of his debts, including Silver
State's auto account. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff asserts
that Silver State's report contradicts itself. Silver
State reported that the account had been discharged in the
bankruptcy, that he still owed over $14, 000 on the auto loan
and had not made payments in years, but also that the account
balance was $0. (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff contends this
conflicting reporting resulted in the “re-aging”
of plaintiff's debt, causing his account to report
negatively for longer than the seven-year period legally
permissible under the FCRA. Id. Further, plaintiff
alleges Silver State violated its obligation under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s-2(b) to report account information accurately
and violated industry standards regarding the reporting of
accounts included in bankruptcy. Id. Included
accounts should be reported as having a balance of $0 and as
being current according to plaintiff.
disputed the Silver State account information with Experian,
as required under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i and
1681s-2(b), but claims Silver State failed to correct the
information. Id. Plaintiff contends that the
erroneous reporting was the result of Silver State's
Automated Credit Dispute Verification (“ACDV”) to
Experian in response to plaintiff's dispute. Id.
instant motions, defendant Silver State moves for summary
judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims (ECF No. 43),
while plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on the
issue of liability based on Silver State's reporting of
inaccurate information on his credit report. (ECF No. 42). .
. . . . .
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow summary judgment when
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A principal purpose
of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
purposes of summary judgment, disputed factual issues should
be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Lujan v.
Nat'l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990).
However, to withstand summary judgment, the nonmoving party
must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Id.
determining summary judgment, a court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for
summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it
must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at
trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial
burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact
on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480
(9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of
proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its
burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an
essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2)
by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a
showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that
party's case on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at
323-24. If the moving party fails to meet its initial burden,
summary judgment must be denied and the court need not
consider the nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159- 60 (1970).
moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986). The opposing party need not establish a dispute of
material fact conclusively in its favor. See T.W. Elec.
Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809
F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). It is sufficient that
“the claimed ...