United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 131). For
the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion.
filed her initial complaint in this action on January 29,
2016 against Ocwen Loan Servicing and Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. ECF No.1. Plaintiff and Ocwen Loan Servicing
filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice on January 3,
2017 (ECF No. 38) which was granted on January 4, 2017,
dismissing Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing from the action.
ECF No. 39. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October
13, 2017 (ECF No. 52) and Defendant Experian filed a Motion
to Dismiss on October 27, 2017 (ECF No. 54). A hearing was
held on that and other motions on August 16, 2018 (ECF No.
114) and the Court granted the motion as it related to
Plaintiff’s theory regarding initiation under §
1681i of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA). Defendant
filed the instant motion on February 11, 2019. ECF No. 131.
Plaintiff responded on March 18, 2019 (ECF No. 136) and
Defendant replied on March 25, 2019 (ECF No. 137).
Court finds the following facts to be undisputed.
about April 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13
Bankruptcy. ECF No. 131, ECF No. 52 at 4. On June 22, 2015,
Plaintiff sought and received a copy of her consumer
disclosure. ECF No. 131 at 3, ECF No. 132 at 3. The
disclosure reflected an Ocwen Loan Servicing mortgage account
with a balance of $938, 186. ECF No. 131 at 3, ECF No. 52 at
7. The payment history was reported as being 180 days
past-due from March 2013 to July 2014. ECF No. 131 at 3, ECF
No. 132 at 4. Plaintiff mailed a letter to Experian on July
29, 2015 disputing the reporting on the Ocwen account. ECF
No. 132 at 4, ECF No. 131 at 3. On August 10, 2015 Experian
sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification
(“ACDV”) to Ocwen. ECF No. 132 at 4, ECF No. 131
at 4. Ocwen responded to Experian on August 13, 2015. ECF No.
132 at 5, ECF No. 131 at 4. Experian mailed its
reinvestigation report to Plaintiff on August 27, 2015 which
indicated that it had updated Experian’s reporting of
the Ocwen account. ECF No. 132 at 6, ECF No. 131 at 4.
parties dispute the legal effect of the circumstances
described. They also dispute whether the letter Plaintiff
sent to Experian on July 29, 2015 identified any factual
inaccuracies regarding her Ocwen account. Defendant claims
the letter did not identify inaccuracies, ECF No. 131 at 3,
while Plaintiff asserts that it did, ECF No. 132 at 7.
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, 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 Cir. 2014).
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 ...