United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
this Court comes Plaintiff James Caseman
(“Plaintiff”)'s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 28) and Defendant Silver State Schools Credit Union
(“Defendant” or “Silver State”)'s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32). For the reasons
stated below, Plaintiff's Motion is denied, and
Defendant's Motion is granted.
January 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint.
(ECF No. 1). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 3,
2017. (ECF No. 11). Responses were due on March 17, 2017. On
March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
with Jury Demand. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15
U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and requests declaratory relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Defendant filed an Answer to the
Amended Complaint on April 3, 2017. (ECF No. 17).
parties filed the instant Motions for Summary Judgment on
November 30, 2017. (ECF Nos. 28, 32). Plaintiff filed his
Response on December 20, 2017. (ECF No. 39). Defendant filed
its Response on December 21, 2017 (ECF No. 43). Replies were
filed on January 3 and 4, 2018. (ECF Nos. 44, 47). On July
27, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the Motions and took
the matter under submission. This Order now follows.
Motion for Summary Judgment
judgment is appropriate 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 judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). When considering the propriety of summary
judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th
movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party
“must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (quotation marks
Court finds the following facts to be undisputed. Plaintiff
is a resident of Nevada and a customer of Defendant.
Defendant is a credit union and furnisher of credit
information under the FCRA.
February 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy,
including a second mortgage from Silver State in Schedule D
of his bankruptcy petition, indicating that the mortgage was
to be avoided. On April 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order “stripping off” the Silver State
mortgage, which was to be avoided “upon completion
and/or discharge of the Debtors' Chapter 13.” On
June 15, 2016, after satisfying his obligations under the
confirmed Chapter 13 plan of reorganization, Plaintiff earned
a discharge in the bankruptcy court, which signified the
termination of Silver State's debt.
after the bankruptcy discharge, Silver State attempted to
correct Plaintiff's account to display a zero balance in
the Automated Universal Dataform (“AUD”), a
system designed to send furnisher updates to consumer
reporting agencies (“CRAs”). The AUD is hosted by
a broader platform called “e-Oscar” used by
furnishers and CRAs. There are notes in the file for
Plaintiff's account which reflect actions taken on his
account, including the attempted AUD update following
Plaintiff's bankruptcy discharge. In a note dated July 6,
2016 at 12:53pm, an employee of Silver State, Tracy Meyer
(“Meyer”) wrote: “SUBMITTED AUD THRU EOSCAR
FOR BOTH MICHELE & JAMES TO REPORT BK13 DISC[HARGE],
PAID/ZERO BAL[ANCE] . . . .” In the course of this
litigation, non-party CRA Innovis confirmed that on July 6,
2016 it did receive an AUD via e-Oscar which updated
Plaintiff's Silver State account to reflect that it was
discharged/completed through bankruptcy Chapter 13 with a
balance of $0 and a past due amount of $0.
pulled a copy of his Equifax consumer disclosure on August
31, 2016, in order to determine if his reporting was accurate
or if anyone was using his credit information. Despite the
attempted updates Silver State made via e-Oscar in July 2016,
Plaintiff discovered on the August 31, 2016 disclosure that
Silver State reported that his account still showed a $52,
005 balance, which should have been $0 in light of the
bankruptcy discharge. Therefore, on or about November 22,