District Court (La.) Dismisses FCRA Case Against Auto Finance Co.; Says Plaintiff Must Plead Both Notice to CRAs by Consumer and Notice from CRAs to Furnisher; Says Furnisher’s Failure to Notify Consumer of Results of Re-investigation w/in 30 Days is Not Actionable Under FCRA

In Desselle v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC,  2014 WL 4635545 (E.D.La. 2014), Judge Fallon dismissed a FCRA claim against an automobile finance company.

Here, Desselle does not allege that the three credit reporting agencies notified Ford Credit of the dispute. He merely asserts that he himself notified the three credit reporting agencies and Ford Credit, and that Ford Credit failed to timely respond or investigate the inquiries. Desselle therefore fails to state a claim as a matter of law because notice given by the credit reporting agency to the furnisher is necessary to trigger the furnisher’s duties under section 1681 s–2(b), and Desselle alleges no such facts in his Complaint.    Desselle’s claim under 15 U.S.C. 1681s–2(b) also fails as a matter of law because Desselle only alleges that Ford Credit failed to fulfill its duties under the section because it did not supply Desselle with its investigation findings within thirty days. While section 1681 s2(a)(8)(E) requires the furnisher to provide the consumer with its findings within thirty days, section 1681 s–2(b) imposes no such requirement. Rather, section 1681 s–2(b) only mandates that the furnisher report its investigation findings to the consumer reporting agency that notified the furnisher of the dispute, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b)(1)(C), and to notify its results to other consumer reporting agencies to which the furnisher had supplied erroneous information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b)(1)(D). While the furnisher has the discretion to notify the consumer with the investigation results, the furnisher is not obligated to perform this task under section 1681 s–2(b). See Chiang, 595 F.3d at 36 (“Although a furnisher may choose to contact a consumer directly about a dispute reported to the furnisher by a CRA (credit reporting agency), ‘requiring a furnisher to automatically contact every consumer who disputes a debt would be terribly inefficient and such action is not mandated by the FCRA.’ ”). Accepting Desselle’s allegations as true, Desselle’s section 1681 s–2(b) claim also fails as a matter of law because Desselle only alleges that Ford Credit failed to supply him with the investigative results, and not a credit reporting agency, which does not signify a furnisher’s duty under section 1681 s–2(b).