In Herrera v. Allianceone Receivable Management, Inc., 2016 WL 7048318, at *8 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Moskowitz granted summary judgment to debt collector on the basis that the debt collector did not know that the information it furnished to a CRA was inaccurate at the time it furnished the information.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on this claim, arguing that there is no evidence that it knew or should have known any information it may have reported was inaccurate or incomplete. (Def.’s MSJ at 26.) Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant notified the CRAs that Plaintiffs owed debts sometime in September 2010. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs argue that before reporting to the CRAs, Defendant knew or should have known of the inaccuracies. They cite to interrogatory answers to support the fact that they told Defendant about the identity mistake in 2010. (Decl. of Salim Khawaja in Supp. of Pls.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 102-3, Ex. 5, 3–5.) Plaintiffs state that the telephone calls and messages from Defendant started around 2010 or 2011. Plaintiffs specifically states “[w]hen I was finally able to speak with one of [the] company representatives, I informed [Defendant] about the wrong person.” (Id.) Plaintiffs never specify whether this conversation took place before or after September 2010. (Id.) The answers to Defendant’s interrogatories do not set forth sufficient facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant knew or should have known of the discrepancy before furnishing information to the CRAs.