selvam v. experian information solutions, inc

7/26/2019 Selvam v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

1/10

151264

Selvamv.ExperianInformationSolutions

UNITED

STATES

COURT

OF

APPEALS

FOR

THE

SECOND

CIRCUIT

SUMMARY

ORDER

RULINGSBYSUMMARYORDERDONOTHAVEPRECEDENTIALEFFECT. CITATIONTOASUMMARYORDERFILEDONORAFTERJANUARY1,2007,ISPERMITTEDANDISGOVERNEDBYFEDERALRULEOFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT

S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARYORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERALAPPENDIXORAN ELECTRONICDATABASE (WITHTHENOTATION

A

SUMMARYORDER

). A PARTYCITINGTOASUMMARYORDERMUSTSERVEACOPYOFITONANYPARTYNOTREPRESENTEDBYCOUNSEL.

AtastatedtermoftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSecond

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley

Square,intheCityofNewYork,onthe7thdayofJune,twothousandsixteen.

PRESENT: ROBERTD.SACK,

RICHARDC.WESLEY,

GERARDE.LYNCH,

Circuit

Judges.

_____________________________________

KAMALADOSSSELVAM,

PlaintiffAppellant,

v. 151264

EXPERIANINFORMATION

SOLUTIONS,

INC.,

DefendantAppellee.

_____________________________________

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page1 of 10


2/10

FORAPPELLANT: KamaladossSelvam,prose,Ridgewood,NY.

FORAPPELLEE: IanSamuel,JonesDay,NewYork,NY.

AppealfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEastern

DistrictofNewYork(Irizarry,J.).

UPONDUECONSIDERATION,ITISHEREBYORDERED,

ADJUDGED,ANDDECREEDthatthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtis

AFFIRMED

inpart,VACATED

inpart,andREMANDEDforfurther

proceedingsconsistentwiththisorder.

AppellantKamaladossSelvam,proceedingprose,appealsfromajudgment

infavorofExperianInformationSolutions,Inc.(Experian)inhissuitunderthe

FairCreditReportingAct,15U.S.C.16811681x.1 Weassumetheparties

familiaritywiththeunderlyingfacts,theproceduralhistory,andtheissues

presentedforreview.

WereviewdenovoaDistrictCourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. Garciav.

HartfordPoliceDept,706F.3d120,126(2dCir.2013)(percuriam). Summary

judgmentmustbegrantedifthereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterialfact

1AlthoughSelvamallegedviolationsoftheNewYorkFairCreditReportingAct,N.Y.

Gen.Bus.L.380,etseq.,inthedistrictcourt,hedidnotaddresstheseclaimsinhis

appellatebrief. Wethereforedeemthemabandoned. SeeLoSaccov.CityofMiddletown,

71F.3d88,92(2dCir.1995).



3/10

3

andthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw. Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).

Indeterminingwhetheragenuinedisputeexists,wemustresolveall

ambiguitiesanddrawallinferencesagainstthemovingparty. Garcia,706F.3d

at127. Aparty,however,cannotovercomesummaryjudgmentbyrelyingon

merespeculationorconjectureastothetruenatureofthefactsbecause

conclusoryallegationsordenials...cannotbythemselvescreateagenuineissue

ofmaterialfactwherenonewouldotherwiseexist. Hicksv.Baines,593F.3d159,

166(2dCir.2010)(internalquotationmarksomitted).

I. ReasonableProceduresandReasonableReinvestigationClaims

WeconcludethattheDistrictCourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgment

toExperianonSelvamsreasonableproceduresandreasonablereinvestigation

claimsunder15U.S.C.1681(b)and1681(i),thoughwereachthisconclusionfor

differentreasonsthanthosestatedbythecourtbelow. TheDistrictCourt

improperlyheldthatSelvamfailedtoraiseanissueoffactregardingtheaccuracy

oftheinformationinExperiansreports. Selvamcorrectlyarguesthatthe

DistrictCourt

erroneously

characterized

his

deposition

testimony

as

admitting

thathemayhavebeenmistakenaboutwhethertheaccountsweretheresultof

identitytheft. AppellantBr.9;Appx158. Selvamactuallytestifiedthathedid



4/10


5/10

5

thematerialcitedtosupportordisputeafactcannotbepresentedinaformthat

wouldbeadmissibleinevidence. Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c)(2)(emphasisadded).

Wehavesaidthatthepartyopposingsummaryjudgmentcannotrelyon

inadmissiblehearsayinopposingamotionforsummaryjudgment[]absenta

showingthatadmissibleevidencewillbeavailableattrial. BurlingtonCoatFactory

WarehouseCorp.v.EspritDeCorp.,769F.2d919,924(2dCir.1985)(internal

citationsomitted)(emphasisadded). Where,ashere,thepartyopposing

summaryjudgmentisactingprose,theCourthasadutytoconstruehis

submissionswithspecialsolicitude. See,e.g.,Triestmanv.Fed.BureauofPrisons,

470F.3d471,47475(2dCir.2006)(notingthatwemustreadprosesubmissions

withspecialsolicitudeandobservingthatthisCourtspolicyofliberally

construingprosesubmissionsisdrivenbytheunderstandingthatimplicitinthe

rightofselfrepresentationisanobligationonthepartofthecourttomake

reasonableallowancestoprotectproselitigantsfrominadvertentforfeitureof

importantrightsbecauseoftheirlackoflegaltraining(alterationsandinternal

quotationmarks

omitted)).

Affording

Selvam

the

special

solicitude

that

his

submissionsaredue,weconcludethattheGElettersthemselves,aswellasthe

underlyingrecordsleadingGEtowritetheletters,wouldalmostcertainlyfall



6/10

6

withinthehearsayexceptionforbusinessrecords,Fed.R.Evid.803(6),andthus

wouldbeavailableattrial.

ThoughtheDistrictCourtimproperlyheldthatSelvamfailedtoraisean

issueoffactregardingtheaccuracyoftheinformationinExperiansreports,it

properlygrantedsummaryjudgmenttoExperianonSelvamsreasonable

proceduresandreasonablereinvestigationclaimsbecauseSelvamhasfailedto

raiseagenuineissueastowhetherhesufferedanydamagesfromExperians

allegedlynegligentfailuretodetecttheinaccuracyoftheinformationaboutthe

GEaccount. EvenassumingthatthecourtshouldconsidertheGElettersthat

Selvamsubmittedinoppositiontosummaryjudgment,andthattheseletters

weresufficienttoraiseagenuineissueofmaterialfactthatExperianreported

inaccurateinformationforthesixmonthsafterExperianallegedlyhadreasonto

questiontheaccuracyoftheinformationprovidedbyGECRB/CareCredit,

Selvamhasnotallegedanyplausibleclaimfordamages. Ifacreditreporting

agencyisnegligentinfailingtocomplywithFCRA,itisliableonlyforactual

damagessustained

by

the

consumer

as

aresult

of

the

failure.

15

U.S.C.

1681o(a)(1). Selvamdoesnotallegethatheappliedfororforwentapplyingfor

anycreditafterthedateonwhichExperianwasinformedtodeletetheLVNV



7/10

7

Fundingaccount,July7,2012andbeforetheGECRB/CareCreditaccountswere

deletedinDecember2012. BecauseSelvamdoesnotallegeanywayinwhichhe

wasdamagedbytheallegedinaccuracyduringthetimeperiodhealleges

Experianhadreason...toquestiontheaccuracyofthe...GEinformation,

AppellantBr.21,hedoesnotplausiblyallegehesufferedanyactualdamages.See

Casellav.EquifaxCreditInfo.Servs.,56F.3d469,475(2dCir.1995)(holdingthat

wherethereisnoevidencethatduringtheperiodinwhich[thecreditreporting

agency]carriedtheinaccurateinformationthatitprovidedplaintiffscredit

reporttoanythirdpartynorationaltrieroffactcouldinferthatanypotential

creditororotherpersoninplaintiffscommunitylearnedofanyhelpful

informationfromthedefendantcreditreportingagency).

Acreditreportingagencymayalsobeliableforstatutorydamagesofnot

lessthan$100andnotmorethan$1,000ifthefailuretocomplywithFCRAwas

willfull[],15U.S.C.1681n(a),whichincludesrecklessdisregard. SafecoIns.

Co.ofAm.v.Burr,551U.S.47,69(2007). AlthoughSelvamarguesthatthereis

sufficientproof

that

Experian

willfully

violated

various

provisions

of

the

FCRA,AppellantBr.27,hepointstonofactstosupportthisentirelyconclusory

argument,whichamountstospeculationorconjecture,Hicks,593F.3dat166.



8/10

8

Therefore,ExperianisentitledtosummaryjudgmentonSelvamsreasonable

proceduresandreasonablereinvestigationclaimsbecauseSelvamhasnotalleged

anissueofmaterialfactthathesufferedanyactualdamagesfromthealleged

inaccuracyorthatExperianactedwillfullyinallegedlyviolatingFCRA.2

II. DisclosureClaim

Wefind,however,thatthedistrictcourtimproperlyconcludedthatthere

wasnodisputeofmaterialfactastoSelvamsconsumerdisclosureclaimunder

1681g. Indismissingthatclaim,thedistrictcourtreasonedthatalthough

[Experian]didprovide[Selvam]withablankcreditreportinFebruary2011,

[Experian]promptlyaddressedtheproblemthefollowingmonth. Appx159.

YetExperianadmittedonsummaryjudgmentthatitssystemhadcontaineda

secondfracturedPINforSelvamsinceearly2010,meaningittookatleastayear

foritsordinarycourseofbusinesstocorrecttheissue. Supp.Appx245. We

findthatthisinconsistencyraisesadisputeofmaterialfactastowhether

ExperiannegligentlyviolatedSelvamsrighttoobtainacopyofhiscreditreport.

2ThisanalysishasnobearingonSelvamsdamagesclaimsunder15U.S.C.1681g

becausehepleadactualinjuriescausedbythedenialofacarloaninJanuary2011anda

mortgageinMayorJune2011whichbothpostdatedExperiansfailuretoprovide

Selvamareportthatcompliedwith1681g.



9/10

9

See15U.S.C.1681g(c)(grantingaconsumertherighttoobtainacopyofhis

creditreport);id.1681o(providingthatapersoncanbesuedfornegligent

violationsof1681(g).

Experiansargumentthatincompletenessisnotthesameasinaccuracyis

unavailing. AppelleeBr.8. Byitsownterms,1681grequiresconsumer

reportingagenciestoclearlyandaccuratelydisclose...[a]llinformation,not

allaccurateinformation. 15U.S.C.1681g(a)(emphasisadded). Thisruleisa

sensibleone. Thepurposeof1681gisnottoensurethatacreditreporting

agencyisdisclosingaccurateinformationtoconsumers;rather,itspurposeisto

enableconsumerstoobtaininformationinordertodisputeanypotential

inaccuraciesinthefilesothatinaccurateinformationisnotsenttothirdparties.

See,e.g.,id.1681g(c)(summarizingtheconsumersrightstoobtainanddispute

informationinconsumerreportsandtoobtaincreditscores).

Moreover,evenafterExperianmergedalltheinformationithadabout

SelvamintoasinglePIN,Experiandidnotcorrectitsfailuretoclearlyand

accuratelydisclose

to

the

consumer

[]

all

information

in

the

consumer

sfile

at

the

timeoftherequestinviolationof1681g,becauseExperiandidnotsend

Selvamacorrectedreportbasedonhiscorrectedormergedfile. Selvamdid



10/10

10

notreceivethemergedfileuntilherequestedanotherreportafterhewas

deniedamortgageallegedlybecauseofnegativeinformationinthemerged

file. AreasonablejurorcouldconcludethatunderthesefactsExperianacted

negligentlyorwithrecklessdisregardofitsobligationtodisclose[a]ll

informationintheconsumersfile. Id.1681g(a)(1).

WehaveconsideredSelvamsremainingargumentsandfindthemtobe

withoutmerit. Accordingly,weAFFIRMinpart,VACATEinpart,and

REMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisorder.

FORTHECOURT:

CatherineOHaganWolfe,Clerk


selvam v. experian information solutions, inc

Documents