In Chuluunbat v. Cavalry Portfolio Servs., LLC, No. 20 C 164, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128931 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2020), Judge Kocoras granted a furnisher’s motion to dismiss an FCRA claim.

Given these letters, Cavalry argues that it was required to do nothing further than what it had already done to comply with its obligations under Section 1681s-2(b). Chuluunbat dismisses these exhibits, arguing that these actions took place at a time when Cavalry’s obligations under the FCRA had not been triggered because he had yet to notify the CRA Defendants that they were reporting inaccurate information. We disagree. Without authority supporting his position, Chuluunbat would have us disregard evidence that Cavalry proactively complied with its duties under the FCRA, simply because he chose to complain to Cavalry directly before notifying the Defendant CRAs of the allegedly inaccurate reporting. Such a holding would discourage furnishers from proactively complying with their statutory obligations under FCRA out of concern that they will have to do it all over again once the consumer triggers the process by filing a dispute with a CRA. Chuluunbat fails to provide authority to support such a holding, and we believe that such a holding would fly in the face of the Act’s purpose of ensuring accurate reporting of consumer credit information to, and by, credit reporting agencies. According to Chuluunbat, the only way Cavalry could have discharged its obligations under the FCRA is by providing the purchase agreement for the Debt. But again, Chuluunbat fails to provide any authority showing that Cavalry was indeed required to provide such documentary evidence or do any more than what it had already done. In short, the exhibits attached to the complaint demonstrate that Cavalry discharged its obligations under FCRA well before it was even required to do so. Phillips v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 714 F.3d 1017, 1019-20 (7th Cir. 2013) (“To the extent that an exhibit attached to or referenced by the complaint contradicts the complaint’s allegations, the exhibit takes precedence.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, Chuluunbat has pled himself out of court by attaching these exhibits to the complaint. Therefore, the Court grants Cavalry’s motion with prejudice.