Dominic Castleberry v. Daimler Chrysler Truck Financial "aka" Chrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106736 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2012)
Facts: Plaintiff Dominic Castleberry claimed that from April 2009 through May 2012, Defendant Chrysler Financial Services ("Chrysler") reported "conflicting, inaccurate and incomplete" credit information to the CRAs regarding his payment history with Chrysler for the purchase of a freightliner tractor. Plaintiff disputed the derogatory account history at least six times with no success, which prompted Plaintiff to file suit. Chrysler asserted that Plaintiff neglected to make any payments toward the loan obligation after October 28, 2008, thereby defaulting on the financing agreement terms. Plaintiff subsequently rejected Chrysler's offer of a three month extension of payments, at which time it advised Plaintiff that it would place the vehicle out for repossession. A week later, the vehicle was collected by a third party company at Chrysler's expense. Plaintiff claims that he offered to deliver the vehicle to a freightliner dealership, although Chrysler allegedly declined this offer. Plaintiff considered the vehicle as having been voluntarily surrendered, not repossessed. The vehicle was later sold for less than the balance owed resulting in a significant deficiency amount which has not been repaid. Chrysler maintains that it fulfilled its obligations to investigate each of Plaintiff's disputes and reported its findings to the CRAs. Plaintiff claims that the allegedly incorrect derogatory information caused him "credit denials, low credit score, damage to credit ratings, defamation, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of opportunity." After consideration of Chrysler's motion for summary judgment and the evidence submitted by both parties, the Court granted Chrysler's Motion in its entirety
- Reinvestigation. The Sixth Circuit has acknowledged that a CRA's reinvestigation upon notice of a dispute from a consumer must be reasonable, but has not held that such standard is expanded to include data furnishers such as Chrysler. The Court looked to other circuits and found that most adopted the reasonableness approach when evaluating the reinvestigation of a data furnisher. Note: The Court found that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that Chrysler's investigation was unreasonable, and instead relied on conclusory statements such as "the court should be shocked and troubled at Defendant's arrogance and defiance of the FCRA regarding their lack of performing their federally mandated duties".
- Willfulness. Plaintiff argued that Chrysler's actions were willful because it had sufficient notice of his disputes and yet continued to report the information inaccurately. In its finding that Plaintiff's allegations of willfulness were insufficiently supported, the Court found that even if Chrysler reported minor inconsistencies or somehow failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, such behavior amounted, at most, to a negligent FCRA violation under §1681o.
- Causation. Plaintiff asserted that his multiple credit denials qualified as actual economic damages, even though the reasons for the denials merely stated: "serious delinquency," "too few accounts currently paid as agreed," "length of time accounts have been established," "repossession," "too many recent inquiries on credit file," and "unable to verify employment." The Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that these factors were based on the Chrysler account at issue in the lawsuit.
- Emotional Distress. Plaintiff asserted humiliation and extreme mental distress as actual damages. Plaintiff provided no evidence of mental or emotional distress stemming specifically from any inaccuracies in the reporting of the Chrysler account on Plaintiff's credit file. Note: The Court held that while Plaintiff's poor credit rating likely caused him distress and humiliation, such distress and humiliation had not been affected in any material or consequential way by the specific reporting of the Chrysler's account.
- Preemption. Plaintiff alleged that Chrysler defamed him by repeatedly publishing incorrect and harmful information about his credit history and that Chrysler's conduct was done with malice and willful intent to injure. In granting summary judgment on this claim, the Court noted that such claim was preempted by the FCRA pursuant to §1681t(b)(1)(F)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.