Here, the reported information regarding Plaintiff’s mortgage loan account—that it was 120 days or more delinquent and that foreclosure proceedings were initiated—was both accurate and complete. The Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s contention that the reported information was rendered incomplete by create a misleading impression because the mortgage foreclosure action accelerated the mortgage.
Alternatively, Plaintiff has alleged at best a legal defense to the debt, not a factual inaccuracy in Rushmore’s reporting. This is an insufficient basis for her asserted FCRA claims against a furnisher under § 1681s-2(b). See, e.g. Bauer v. Target Corp., No. 8:12-CV-00978-AEP, 2013 WL 12155951, at *13 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2013) (“a furnisher’s duty to investigate extends to factual inaccuracies, not legal disputes”) (citation omitted); Chiang, 595 F.3d at 38 (holding that, to prevail in a suit against a furnisher, plaintiff has the burden to prove a “factual inaccuracy, rather than the existence of disputed legal questions” to prove liability under § 1681s-2(b) for a failure to report an inaccuracy). Further, as the reported information was not inaccurate or incomplete, Rushmore had no further duty to investigate. Stated another way, where the reported information was accurate and complete, Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege damages based on the furnisher’s alleged failure to conduct a reasonable investigation or reinvestigation. See Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Section 1681s-2(b) contemplates three potential ending points to reinvestigation: verification of accuracy, a determination of inaccuracy or incompleteness, or a determination that the information ‘cannot be verified.’ ”) (emphasis added); Bauer, 2013 WL 12155951, at *9 (“Target’s investigation, which verified Bauer’s information, was reasonable simply because the reported balance of the debt was accurate.”). Therefore, the FCRA claims shall be dismissed