Ramones v. Experian Info. Solutions, LLC

537 F.Supp.3d 1314

Francisco Javier PEREZ RAMONES, Plaintiff,

v.EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC and others, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-62949-Civ-Scola

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed May 7, 2021

Lauren Elizabeth Pozna, SmithMarco, P.C., Sarasota, FL, David M. Marco, SmithMarco, PC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Charles James McHale, Jr., Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC, Tampa, FL, for Defendants.

Order On Motions For Summary Judgment

Robert N. Scola, Jr., United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 96) and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 97). Having considered the parties’ motions, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion and denies the Defendant's motion.

1. Background

The Plaintiff, Francisco Javier Perez Ramones, alleges that the Defendant¹ , AR Resources, Inc. ("ARR"), violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. , for reporting debts to Credit Reporting Agencies ("CRAs") Experian and Trans Union as belonging to the Plaintiff who is 35 years old, when in fact they belonged to his 83 year old father, Francisco Perez Gonzalez.

The Defendant is a collection agency which is hired by companies to collect debts owed by third parties. (ECF Nos. 95, 103, at ¶ 16.) The Defendant has about 600 clients, receives on average 50,000 new accounts each month, and generates its only income by receiving a percentage of the debt that it recovers for its clients. (Id. , at ¶¶ 17-20.) Grassy Waters Inpatient Services is one of the Defendant's clients. (Id. , at ¶ 18; ECF Nos. 98, 101, at ¶ 3.)

As part of its debt collection efforts, ARR and its investigators utilize a system known as e-OSCAR to receive notice of and respond to the consumer credit disputes received from CRAs. (ECF Nos. 98, 101, at ¶ 20.) The disputes received through e-OSCAR include fields for the disputing consumer to include a message relating to the dispute. (ECF Nos. 95, 103, at ¶ 31.) ARR also utilizes an internal system known as CRS where it stores the information it has in its own files such as the account information it receives from its clients. (Id. , at ¶ 25.) When ARR receives a dispute through e-OSCAR, it reviews the account information it has on CRS and compares that information against the information reflected on e-OSCAR. (Id. , at ¶ 40.) ARR's investigators have three choices when they review a dispute—they can indicate that the information ARR has on its systems is the same, different, or unknown, when compared against the information received through e-OSCAR. (Id. , at ¶ 34, 36.) The Defendant does not dispute that its investigators do not review the "consumer message" field when processing a dispute. (Id. , at ¶ 37.) The Defendant's investigators have never contacted clients or consumers to get more information relating to disputed accounts. (Id. , at ¶¶ 53-60.)

On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff's father was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit at Westside Regional Medical Center where he was treated, and later released on June 30, 2017. (Id. , at ¶ 4.) After his treatment, on January 1, 2018, Grassy Waters referred the accounts belonging to Francisco Perez Gonzalez, the Plaintiff's father, to ARR for collection and ARR began its collection efforts. (ECF Nos. 98, 101, at ¶¶ 3, 6.) In March 2018, the Defendant began reporting to Experian and Trans Union that the Plaintiff, Francisco J Perez, owed 19 debts to Grassy Waters, when in fact these debts belonged to his 83 year old father. (Id. , at ¶ 6.) After the Defendant began reporting these debts, the Plaintiff "repeatedly disputed the erroneous reporting." (Id. at ¶ 7.) It appears the Plaintiff disputed the reported accounts around 30 times.

On June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff first noticed that ARR was reporting 19 collections to Trans Union and Experian, and submitted the first of his disputes to Trans Union. (ECF Nos. 95, 103, at ¶ 28.) The Plaintiff's dispute noted the accounts were not his and provided his name, as well as the last four digits of his social security number. (ECF Nos. 98, 101, at ¶ 21.) The Plaintiff also included a message with his dispute, reading "I have no idea what was this expenses coming from I haven't been sick in my life times." (ECF Nos. 95, 103, at ¶ 38.) One of the Defendant's employees, Nieves Macrone, processed this dispute without reviewing the consumer message. (Id. , at ¶¶ 33, 37.) ARR ultimately determined, via the procedures outlined above, that the disputed accounts belonged to the Plaintiff despite his message and the mismatched names.

On August 30, 2018, another of the Defendant's investigators, Lisa Lesane, responded to four disputes submitted by the Plaintiff to Trans Union. (Id. , at ¶ 64.) Despite investigating four of the Plaintiff's disputes on the same day, and even though the information reflected through e-OSCAR showed the name of the disputer was Francisco J Perez and the information reflected on ARR's system showed the accounts belonged to Francisco Perez Gonzale (with this misspelling), the Defendant determined the accounts were verified. Indeed, the Defendant's investigator noted the differences in the names when undertaking her investigation of the Plaintiff's disputes. (Id. , at ¶¶ 66-71). As above, the Plaintiff said these accounts were not his and provided the last four of his social security number with his dispute. (ECF Nos. 98, 101, at ¶¶ 22.) This same investigator responded to another 9 disputes the Plaintiff submitted to Experian on October 25, 2019. (ECF Nos. 95, 103, at ¶ 65.) The Defendant once again determined the disputed accounts belonged to the Plaintiff.

A third investigator, Melody Davis, investigated ten disputes submitted by the Plaintiff to Experian on October 25, 2019, and another four disputes submitted to Trans Union on November 27, 2019. (Id. , at ¶¶ 73-74.) As before the Plaintiff provided similar information as with his prior disputes, noting the account was not his and providing his name and social security number. (ECF Nos. 98, 101, at ¶ 24.) The Plaintiff also provided a consumer message with his November disputes which stated "this account belongs to my father who has the same first name and last name as me[.] I am Francisco Javier Perez Ramones DOB 01 25 1985 and my fathers name is Francisco Jose Perez Ramones DOB 03 06 1937." (ECF No. 94-9, at 13.)² The message is cut off but appears to also reference the Plaintiff's prior disputes to the CRAs. The Defendant again concluded the disputed accounts belonged to the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the consumer message.

The parties agree that the Defendant did not have a date of birth listed in its system for the disputed accounts and therefore coded the date of birth on the accounts as unknown. (ECF Nos. 95, 103, at ¶¶ 78-79.) It is undisputed that the Defendant made no attempt to investigate the date of birth associated with the disputed accounts, including by contacting Grassy Waters, the Plaintiff, or by some other means and therefore could not confirm the date of birth that it received through e-OSCAR from the CRAs. (Id. , at ¶¶ 80, 84.) It also does not appear the Defendant made any effort to reconcile the inconsistencies in the names appearing on the e-OSCAR reports and its system. Rather, one of the Defendant's investigators appears to have acknowledged the mismatched names, but stated she would not delete an account because of a different last name, as that is against ARR's policies. (ECF No. 103, at ¶ 85.) Finally, it is undisputed that the Defendant does not review the "consumer messages" it receives through e-OSCAR. (Id. , at ¶ 37.)

The parties agree that the Defendant does not know if the Plaintiff owes the debts that it was attempting to collect, that ARR followed its standard procedures in investigating Plaintiff's disputes, and that ARR believes its investigations of the Plaintiff's disputes were reasonable under the FCRA. (Id. , at ¶¶ 93-100.) The Plaintiff claims that because of the collection accounts the Defendant reported incorrectly to Trans Union and Experian, he was denied loans from LendingClub and Wells Fargo.

2. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, "summary judgment is appropriate where there ‘is no genuine issue as to any material fact’ and the moving party is ‘entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ " Alabama v. North Carolina , 560 U.S. 330, 130 S. Ct. 2295, 2308, 176 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ). "The moving party bears the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial ... [o]nly when that burden has been met does the burden shift to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment." Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc. , 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). Rule 56(c) "requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the nonmoving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (stating "[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts").

The Court must...