In Cowley v. Equifax Info. Servs., No. 2:18-cv-02846-TLP-cgc, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193522 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2019, the District Court refused to allow a scheduled monthly payment issue case to proceed under the FCRA.
The only evidence Plaintiff [*9] brings to defeat UCFSC’s motion for summary judgment is that the industry guideline, the CRRG, suggests that when a furnisher of consumer information reports a charged-off debt, that report should reflect a scheduled monthly payment amount of $0.00. (ECF No. 78 at PageID 533.) But as already explained, the CRRG is inadmissible hearsay and the Court cannot consider it at the summary judgment stage. (See supra pp. 3-4.) By contrast, UCFSC relies on the affidavit of Timothy K. Spencer, its Chief Compliance Officer, who declared: The amount of $72.00 was the correct scheduled monthly payment for Cowley’s account because, pursuant to the Agreement, Cowley was obligated to make twenty-four (24) equal monthly payments in the amount of $72.04 to UCFS to repay the principal owed plus interest. If anything, the reported amount underreported Cowley’s obligation by $0.04/month. (ECF No. 73 at PageID 450.) This evidence is undisputed. And Plaintiff seeks to manufacture a dispute of material fact by asserting that $72.00 was an inaccurate amount because she defaulted on the payments and Defendant accelerated the debt. (ECF No. 78 at PageID 509-10.) But Plaintiff provides no evidence in support of her claim that Defendant’s report was inaccurate, nor does she cite case law supporting this assertion. (Id.) So Plaintiff effectively failed to dispute UCFSC’s factual claim that the $72.00 scheduled monthly payment amount was accurate. Given Plaintiff’s failure to rebut Defendant’s evidence, the Court finds that there is no dispute as to material fact about the accuracy of UCFSC’s report on Plaintiff’s scheduled monthly payment. 7 What is more, UCFSC’s report here was not materially misleading because Plaintiff submitted no proof that the report misled a creditor. Plaintiff provides only her opinion without admissible evidence that the allegedly inaccurate report created a misleading impression of her consumer credit file for credit reporting agencies. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 5.) And the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly found that a personal opinion, by itself, cannot support an inaccuracy claim under the FCRA. See, e.g., Dickens v. Trans Union Corp., 18 F. App’x 315, 318 (6th Cir. 2001) (“mere speculation . . . without more, is insufficient”); Bailey v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 13-cv-10377, 2013 WL 3305710 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2013) (conclusory allegations that the report is inaccurate and misleading are insufficient); Elsady v. Rapid Global Bus. Sols., Inc., No. 09-cv-11659, 2010 WL 2740154 (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2010) (a plaintiff must at least show that the defendant misled a creditor). Plaintiff has therefore showed no inaccuracy here.