Edeh v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC

Decision Date24 September 2013
Docket NumberCivil No. 11–2671 (SRN/JSM).
Citation974 F.Supp.2d 1220
PartiesSamuel N. EDEH, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Samuel N. Edeh, Rochester, MN, pro se.

Andrew T. Shern and Christopher G. Angell, Murnane Brandt, PA, St. Paul, MN; J. Anthony Love and Brian J. Olson, King & Spalding, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 175] and Plaintiff Samuel N. Edeh's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 192]. 1 These motions were decided on the papers. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted, and Plaintiff's motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND2

On May 16, 2003, Plaintiff Samuel Edeh (Edeh) opened a credit card account with Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Capital One”). (Napolitano Aff. ¶ 5 [Doc. No. 35].) On May 19, 2006, Edeh made the last payment on his credit card balance prior to having his account charged off as bad debt by Capital One on December 21, 2006. ( Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.)

On September 17, 2009, Capital One sent a letter to Edeh stating that his account was severely delinquent, the account had been charged off as bad debt, and the full balance of $1,438.16 was due immediately. (Edeh Aff. dated Oct. 31, 2011 (“First Edeh Aff.”), Ex. C at 2 [Doc. No. 21].) This letter also notified Edeh there could still be a balance on his account after Capital One received payment because interest, late charges, and other charges change day-to-day. ( Id., Ex. C at 3.) Subsequently, Capital One sent Edeh a billing statement for the period of June 24, 2010, through September 23, 2010 (“June–September 2010 statement”), notifying him of an outstanding balance of $1,671.61. (Napolitano Aff. ¶ 8 & Ex. A at 1; First Edeh Aff. ¶ 10 & Ex. E at 1.)

On November 3, 2010, Edeh sent a letter and a check in the amount of $1,700 to Capital One, which was received by Capital One on November 5, 2010; the check was ultimately received by Capital One's payment processing center on or about November 9, 2010. (Missimer Aff. ¶¶ 5, 7 & Ex. 1 [Doc. No. 36]; Edeh Aff. dated Mar. 13, 2012 (“Second Edeh Aff.”), Ex. Q (EIS–EDEH–0109) [Doc. No. 72]; Wright Aff. ¶ 5 [Doc. No. 37]; First Edeh Aff. ¶ 9 & Ex. D at 1.) However, Capital One was unable to process the check upon arrival, as the payment coupon was not enclosed, the check contained no identifying information, and the signature was illegible. (Wright Aff. ¶ 5; First Edeh Aff., Ex. D at 2 (check in amount of $1,700).) The check was forwarded to Capital One's research team, which could not discern to whom the check should be credited, given the lack of identifying information. (Wright Aff. ¶ 6.) On November 24, 2010, Capital One cashed the $1,700 check and placed it in the “unclaims” account pending further information. ( Id. ¶ 7; First Edeh Aff. ¶ 9 & Ex. D at 2.)

On November 28, 2010, Equifax received via facsimile a letter from Edeh dated November 25, 2010, in which Edeh stated that “the furnisher agreed to remove the account from my credit reports. Please investigate this account so it can be removed from my credit file.” (Smith Decl. dated Dec. 12, 2011 (“First Smith Decl.”) ¶ 70 & Ex. P [Doc. No. 42].) On November 29, 2010, Equifax sent an Automated Consumer Disputed Verification (“ACDV”) system summary 3 to Capital One, which described Edeh's November 28, 2010, dispute as follows: “CONSUMER STATES INACCURATE INFORMATION. VERIFY COMPLETE ID AND ACCOUNT INFORMATION.” (Third Edeh Aff., Ex. B (EIS–EDEH–0099).) On November 30, 2010, Capital One responded that the account information had been reported correctly. (First Smith Decl. ¶ 71.) On November 30, 2010, Equifax sent Edeh the results of its reinvestigation, indicating that “Equifax verified that this item belongs to you” and enclosing additional information provided by Capital One, including the balance of the Capital One account in the amount of $1,713. ( Id. ¶ 72; First Edeh Aff., Ex. G.)

On December 1, 2010, Capital One sent a letter to Edeh in response to a dispute as to the amount he owed, in which Capital One maintained that its investigation showed that Edeh had an outstanding balance of $1,714.17. (First Edeh Aff., Ex. H.) On the same day, Equifax received a letter via facsimile from Edeh, which stated: “Per CAPITAL ONE BANK USA ..., please verify the accuracy of this account and demonstrate that it appears correctly in my credit file. To aid your inquiry, I enclosed documents indicating the account was paid in full and that the creditor agreed to remove it from my credit file.” (First Smith Decl., Ex. R; First Edeh Aff., Ex. P at 1.) Attached to this letter were documents that Edeh claimed indicated his account had been paid in full and that Capital One had agreed to remove the account from his credit file: a November 3, 2010, letter to Capital One from Edeh including a check payable to Capital One for $1,700, and the cancelled check in the amount of $1,700 made payable to Capital One. (Second Edeh Aff., ¶ 2 & Ex. Q (EIS–EDEH–0109 to EIS–EDEH–0110).)

On December 2, 2010, Equifax sent an ACDV system summary to Capital One, which described Edeh's December 1, 2010, dispute as follows: “DISPUTES CURRENT BALANCE—VERIFY ORIGINAL LOAN AMOUNT, SCHEDULED MONTHLY PAYMENT AMOUNT, ACTUAL PAYMENT AMOUNT, AMOUNT PAST DUE, CURRENT BALANC [sic].” ( Id.(EIS–EDEH–0111).) On December 3, 2010, Capital One responded that the account information belonged to Edeh and updated the balance and past due amount. (First Smith Decl. ¶ 74.) On the same day, Equifax sent the results of its reinvestigation to Edeh, notifying him that his Capital One account balance had been updated to $1,715. (First Edeh Aff., Ex. I.) On December 3, 2010, Edeh sent a letter to Capital One asserting that his “account has been paid in full” and noting that he had enclosed the dispute submitted to Capital One through the credit reporting agency (“CRA”). ( Id., Ex. P at 5.) Edeh asked that Capital One investigate his account so that it could be modified accordingly. ( Id.)

On December 7, 2010, Edeh notified Capital One's representative, Darik Brown, that he had faxed Capital One a copy of the cashed check, as “Alma” at Capital One had previously requested, and that he wanted a confirmation that the Capital One account had been fully satisfied in order to finalize a loan application. ( Id., Ex. P at 6.) On December 15, 2010, Capital One notified Edeh that it had resolved the payment discrepancy and had applied the necessary credit to his account. ( Id., Ex. K.) The balance on Edeh's account, as of that date, was $22.93. ( Id.) According to Capital One, it had received correspondence from Edeh regarding the $1,700 check, which caused it to remove Edeh's payment from the “unclaims” account and to credit it to Edeh's account. (Napolitano Aff. ¶ 9.) Capital One refunded the finance charges on Edeh's account for December 2010 because it credited the $1,700 payment as having been received on November 24, 2010, when Capital One cashed the check. ( Id. ¶ 10.) However, by November 24, 2010, the account balance had exceeded $1,700, so a small balance ($22.93) remained on Edeh's account after the $1,700 payment had been credited. ( Id. ¶ 11.)

On December 20, 2010, Edeh sent a letter to a “Loraine” at Capital One, enclosing a cashed check and bank statement showing that the check was cashed on November 24, 2010, and requesting that Capital One fax a letter to him indicating that the account had been paid in full and had a zero balance. (First Edeh Aff., Ex. P at 7.) On December 21, 2010, Capital One sent a letter to Edeh, signed by Loraine Bryan, Recoveries Specialist, thanking him for his recent payment of $1,700, which it had received on December 16, 2010. ( Id., Ex. L at 1.) This letter informed Edeh that the “balance on your Capital One account is now paid in full” and that [o]nce the payment clears, we'll notify the following credit reporting agencies that your account has been paid in full.” ( Id.) Capital One also stated that the “credit reporting agencies may take up to 60 days to update the information on your credit report.” ( Id.) The letter also included Bryan's telephone number. ( Id.)

On December 21, 2010, Edeh faxed a letter to Equifax, which provided:

Please investigate this account and show that it appears accurately on my credit file. To aid your investigation, enclosed please find cashed check as well as current bank statement indicating that the account was paid in full.

The full payment check cleared my bank account on 11 /24/2010. Also enclosed is a letter from Capital One confirming that the account has been paid in full. Please forward these materials to Capital One for proper investigation of this account. Thank you.

(First Smith Decl., Ex. T; Second Edeh Aff., Ex. R (emphasis omitted).) This letter enclosed the cashed $1,700 check to Capital One, Edeh's bank statement showing the check had been cashed, and the December 21, 2010, letter from Bryan at Capital One. (Second Edeh Aff., Ex. R.)

On December 22, 2010, Equifax sent an ACDV system summary to Capital One, which described Edeh's December 21, 2010, dispute as follows: “DISPUTES CURRENT BALANCE—VERIFY ORIGINAL LOAN AMOUNT, SCHEDULED MONTHLY PAYMENT AMOUNT, ACTUAL PAYMENT AMOUNT, AMOUNT PAST DUE, CURRENT BALANC [sic].” ( Id.) In the section entitled “FCRA Relevant Information,” Equifax stated: “CONSUMER SENT WELLS FARGO BANK STATEMENT OF PERIOD NOVEMBER 18 2010 TO DECEMBER 16 2010 AND CHECK OF WELLS FARGO TO CAPITAL ONE DATED 11 02 2010 WITH CHECK NUMBER 091000019 HAS BEEN PAID USD 1700 PLEASE VERIFY. ( Id.) On December 23, 2010, Capital One responded that the account balance information should be updated to report a $9 balance, Equifax updated Edeh's credit file to reflect a $9 balance on the Capital One account, and Equifax notified Edeh of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Tamburo v. Dworkin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 26, 2013
  • Hrebal v. Seterus, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • January 25, 2019
    ...or higher interest rates resulting from a ... credit report can constitute actual damages under the FCRA." Edeh v. Equifax Info. Servs. , 974 F.Supp.2d 1220, 1242 (D. Minn. 2013). "[M]ental pain and anxiety can [also] constitute actual damages" under the FCRA, so long as conclusory allegati......
  • Beseke v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • November 22, 2019
    ...received from other sources." Cushman v. Trans Union Corp. , 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997) ; see also Edeh v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC , 974 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1235 (D. Minn. 2013) (recognizing that a reasonable reinvestigation may require information beyond that provided by a creditor);......
  • Ketsenburg v. ChexSystems, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 10, 2022
    ... ... NationsCredit Fin ... Servs. Corp. , 297 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1202-03 (E.D. Mo ... 2003). As part of ... violation[].” Bailey v. Equifax Credit Info ... Servs., Inc. , No. 114CV00797MHCJCF, 2016 WL ... Murphy , 456 F.Supp.2d at 1089; Edeh v. Equifax ... Info. Servs., LLC , 919 F.Supp.2d 1006, 1012 (D ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT