Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Andrews v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC
Citations: 700 F. Supp. 2d 1276; 2010 WL 1254637Docket: Case C08-0817-JCC
Court: District Court, W.D. Washington; March 31, 2010; Federal District Court
Tara C. Andrews filed a lawsuit against Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Transunion LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to inaccurate reporting of her credit information. The case focuses on claims that the credit agencies confused her data with another individual sharing her name and failed to maintain accurate reporting procedures. Equifax sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims predating May 23, 2006, arguing they were barred by the statute of limitations. The court found no need for oral argument and denied Equifax's motion. Under the FCRA, claims must be filed within two years of discovering the violation or within five years of the violation itself. The parties agreed that the five-year period is not relevant, but they disputed whether Andrews discovered the alleged violation before May 23, 2006. The FCRA's statute of limitations was amended in 2003 to include a discovery rule, which became effective in 2004, changing how claims are assessed based on the timing of the plaintiff's awareness of the violation. This amendment has been interpreted as potentially more restrictive in defining actionable conduct. The statute relevant to this case hinges on when a plaintiff becomes aware of an alleged violation, rather than the date of the violation itself. Specifically, the statute's timing starts upon the plaintiff's "discovery" of the violations. The violations in question pertain to three provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA): 15 U.S.C. § 1681b, which regulates permissible purposes for consumer reports; § 1681e(b), which mandates consumer reporting agencies to maintain accurate information; and § 1681i, which requires agencies to conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputes about report accuracy. Defendant Equifax argues that the plaintiff had notice of potential claims based on her disputes regarding her credit file on two occasions in 2004 and 2005, claiming she was informed of the investigation results. However, the court notes that mere knowledge of inaccuracies does not equate to a discovered violation of the FCRA, as the act is not a strict liability statute. The court emphasizes that there could be various reasons for inaccuracies that do not constitute violations under the FCRA. The court concludes that there remains a significant factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff actually discovered the alleged violations. Equifax fails to provide adequate evidence linking the reports it generated to the plaintiff's awareness of the specific violations claimed in the lawsuit. Notably, Equifax did not submit the reports for review or demonstrate that the plaintiff understood its procedures for ensuring report accuracy or reinvestigating disputes. Equifax failed to demonstrate how its reports indicated the dissemination of information to third parties as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681b. It did not sufficiently support its claim that the Plaintiff received these reports and thus 'discovered' the alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations. Although Equifax asserted that it sent investigation results to the Plaintiff's address, no evidence was provided to confirm receipt or that the Plaintiff deduced a possible FCRA violation from these reports. The Plaintiff’s deposition indicated uncertainty about whether she had seen the relevant reports, undermining Equifax's position. The Court refrained from addressing any potential mailbox rule or presumption of receipt, noting that Equifax did not cite any supporting legal authority for such a presumption. Consequently, the Court concluded that Equifax did not meet its burden to show that the Plaintiff discovered any FCRA violation before May 23, 2006. Equifax's motion for summary judgment regarding the Plaintiff's claims for damages from credit denials by Boeing Employee Credit Union (BECU) was also rejected. Equifax contended that the Plaintiff was made aware of FCRA violations when notified of BECU's denials based on Equifax's information. However, the Court found no evidence that such denials indicated any FCRA violations to the Plaintiff. In her deposition, the Plaintiff expressed ignorance about the information Equifax provided to BECU and acknowledged other legitimate delinquent accounts on her credit report, suggesting alternative reasons for the denials. Thus, the denial of credit did not constitute 'discovery' of any violation of federal law. The motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and a related motion to extend the dispositive motions deadline was deemed moot since the deadline had already passed. Lastly, the Court noted that Equifax was the only defendant involved in this motion and highlighted prior case law referenced by Equifax, which was vacated in part, emphasizing that knowledge of an inaccuracy does not equate to knowledge of a legal violation.