9th Cir. Says Furnisher Did Not Unreasonably Investigate Consumer Dispute Merely Because Furnisher Did Not Agree with Consumer

In Bondi v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC., 2018 WL 5291221 (C.A.9 (Nev.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished decision found that no FCRA claim would lie for a direct dispute with the Furnisher and, even if one did, the Furnisher did not unreasonably investigate the dispute simply because it reached a conclusion adverse to the consumer.

The district court concluded that Bondi’s FCRA claim against Nationstar failed because he did not offer any evidence showing that Nationstar received notice of a dispute from a consumer credit reporting agency (“CRA”). Under the FCRA, a furnisher’s statutory obligations are triggered “only after the furnisher receives notice of a dispute from a CRA; notice of a dispute received directly from the consumer” is insufficient. Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154 (discussing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)); see Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 690 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012).On appeal, Bondi cites only his direct correspondence with Nationstar, arguing that he “made numerous phone calls and wrote numerous letters to Nationstar” protesting its credit reporting. But his direct correspondence with Nationstar is irrelevant; Bondi does not identify any notice of a dispute that Nationstar received from a CRA, and he certainly did not identify any such notice in the district court. See, e.g., Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1058 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The ‘party opposing summary judgment must direct the court’s attention to specific, triable facts,’ and the reviewing court is ‘not required to comb through the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment.’ ” (citations and internal alterations omitted)).Even assuming Nationstar had received notice of a dispute, Bondi does not articulate how Nationstar violated the FCRA. Upon receiving notice of a dispute from a CRA, a furnisher is required under the FCRA to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct any errors it finds. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1); Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1156–57. Bondi has produced no evidence showing that Nationstar failed in this regard; instead, he points to Nationstar’s refusal to believe his assertion that his loan had been forgiven. Nothing in the FCRA obliged Nationstar to accept this assertion as true and resolve the dispute in his favor. Cf. Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1161 (“An investigation is not necessarily unreasonable because it results in a substantive conclusion unfavorable to the consumer, even if that conclusion turns out to be inaccurate.”).