In Jackling v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 15-CV-6148-FPG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146675, at *6-7 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2019), Judge Geraci granted a furnisher’s motion in limine to limit damages.

In its First Motion in Limine, HSBC argues that Jackling should be precluded from introducing evidence on damages related to the Dorschel Toyota credit denial because Dorschel denied him credit in September 2014, before Jackling lodged his December 2014 and January 2015 credit report disputes. Thus, HSBC’s investigation of those two disputes could not have caused Dorschel’s denial of credit and the evidence of that credit denial is irrelevant to this case. See ECF No. 87-6 at 8-10.  The Court agrees. “[T]he duty to investigate a credit dispute is triggered only upon notice of the dispute from a consumer reporting agency.” Nguyen v. Ridgewood Sav. Bank, 66 F. Supp. 3d 299, 305 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); see also Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 56 F.3d 469, 473 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that damages occurring prior to appellant notifying credit reporting agencies of inaccurate credit information “cannot be compensable as ‘actual damages’ for a violation of the FCRA“); Whelan v. Trans Union Credit Reporting Agency, 862 F. Supp. 824, 830 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (granting summary judgment to defendant where plaintiff failed [*7]  to present evidence that the credit reporting agency had been notified of inaccuracies on credit report prior to plaintiff’s alleged damages). HSBC’s motion in limine on this issue is therefore GRANTED.