Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`__________________________________________
`STEFAN INGRAM,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
`INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`__________________________________________:
`
`Goldberg, J.
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`No. 18-3776
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` June 30, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Plaintiff Stefan Ingram originally brought suit against Defendants Experian Information
`
`
`
`Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”), Waypoint Resource
`
`Group, LLC (“Waypoint”), and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) in connection with
`
`a Comcast account allegedly opened using Plaintiff’s name and for which Waypoint acted as a debt
`
`collector. Plaintiff sets forth claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Fair Debt
`
`Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
`
`Following various settlements, Waypoint is the sole remaining defendant. Waypoint moves for
`
`summary judgment on all claims against it. For the following reasons, I will grant the Motion in its
`
`entirety.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Comcast Account
`
`Unless so indicated, the following facts are uncontested.1
`
`
`1
`References to the parties’ submissions will be made as follows: Defendants’ Statement of
`Undisputed Facts (“DSUF”), Plaintiff’s Response (“PR”), Plaintiff’s Counter-Statement of Undisputed
`Facts (“PCSUF”), and Defendant’s Response (“DR”). To the extent a statement is undisputed by the
`parties, I will cite only to the parties’ submissions. If a statement is disputed and can be resolved by
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`According to Plaintiff, a Comcast account was fraudulently opened in his name for service at
`
`1330 N 53rd Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19131. (DSUF ¶¶ 2–3; PR ¶¶ 2–3.) Plaintiff is not aware
`
`of anyone that has resided at that address, and according to his tax returns from 2016–2018, his credit
`
`reports from October and December 2019, and his current driver’s license, he never lived at that address.
`
`(DSUF ¶¶ 4–6; PR ¶¶ 4–6.) Plaintiff claims that he did not authorize anyone to open the Comcast
`
`account in his name. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A, Dep. of Stefan Ingram (“Ingram Dep.”), 29:12–22,
`
`70:21–71:18.)
`
`
`
`When the account became delinquent, Comcast placed it with Stellar Recovery, Inc. for
`
`collection. (DSUF ¶ 12; PR ¶ 12.) Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff checked his credit report and learned
`
`of the account’s existence. (DSUF ¶ 13; PR ¶ 13.) On October 19, 2017, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter
`
`to Comcast advising that the debt was inaccurate, requesting that Comcast perform a reasonable
`
`investigation of the debt, and demanding that Comcast report to the credit reporting agencies that the
`
`account is disputed. (DSUF ¶ 15; PR ¶ 15.) Specifically, the letter stated, in pertinent part:
`
`Mr. Ingram does not believe the above-referenced alleged debt to be
`accurate and therefore disputes it. In accordance with the Fair Debt
`Collection Practices Act codified under 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a–p), we are
`asking for, and you are required to provide validation of this alleged debt.
`In accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act codified under Title 15
`United States Code Section 1681, we are asking for (1) a reasonable
`investigation; (2) that you report the results of this reasonable
`investigation to my office; and (3) that you notify each credit bureau to
`mark this account “disputed.” Additionally, and if applicable, please
`provide this letter to the company for whom you are collecting so that
`they have notice of my dispute. Please also provide the amount it is
`alleged Mr. Ingram owes on this debt. If this alleged account has been
`transferred to or from another agency, please provide that agency’s name
`and address.
`
`It is Mr. Ingram’s position that this is not his account. Please investigate
`and validate the credit information your agent, Stellar Recovery Inc., has
`furnished in Mr. Ingram’s credit reports, or instruct Stellar Recovery Inc.
`
`reference to the exhibits, I will cite the supporting exhibits. I will not rely on any statement of fact that
`is unsupported by reference to a specific exhibit.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`to delete the tradelines. If you claim that late payments are verified, we
`hereby demand strict proof of every alleged late payment.
`
`(Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C.)
`
`In a November 6, 2017 letter, Comcast responded to Plaintiff’s letter and requested various
`
`pieces of information:
`
`We are sending this letter in response to your letter dated October 19,
`2017 regarding your client Stefan Ingram.
`
`If you believe Mr. Ingram has been a victim of fraud or identi[t]y theft
`he will need to submit a claim to Comcast. Please advise your client to
`obtain the fraud and identi[t]y theft affidavit available from the Federal
`Trade Commission (FTC) website at www.consumer.gov/idtheft. The
`completed affidavit must be notarized and submitted to Comcast, not the
`FTC, along with proof of residence during the time being disputed, in
`this case proof of residence from July 15, 2016 through November 18,
`2016 is required. A police report or incident report is required along with
`a valid government-issued photo identification card such as a driver’s
`license, state-issued ID card or passport. Please return all paperwork to
`Comcast Customer Security Assurance, Attention: Fraud Department,
`101 Woodcrest Road, Suite 141, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003. Mr.
`Ingram may also return the paperwork via facsimile at (844) 335-8719.
`Please be advised that the entire process, start to finish, may take up to
`30 days. During the investigation Comcast will suspend collection
`activity and request that all credit bureaus are notified that this account
`is under investigation for identity theft. If Comcast concludes the
`suspect account was the result of identi[t]y theft, Comcast will request
`the removal of this information from Mr. Ingram’s credit report.
`
` (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C-1.) Plaintiff did not submit a police report at or near that time and never
`
`provided the required affidavit to Comcast. (DSUF ¶¶ 20–21; PR ¶¶ 20-21; Ingram Dep. 54:2–56:9.)
`
`Comcast never made any determination that the Comcast account dispute was opened as a result
`
`of fraud or that Plaintiff was not responsible for the account. (Ingram Dep. 57:8–17.) As such, Comcast
`
`continued to attempt to collect the alleged debt for this account. (Id. at 57:18–22.) Although the account
`
`was removed from his trade line with Stellar Recovery Group, it has continued to be listed on his credit
`
`report. (Id. at 57:23–8:20.)
`
`B.
`
`The Waypoint Trade Line
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`On November 27, 2017, Comcast referred the account to Waypoint for collection. (Def.’s Mot.
`
`Summ. J., Ex. F, Dep. of Virginia Lozano (“Lozano Dep.”) 50:6–12.) Virginia Lozano, who originally
`
`handled this account on behalf of Waypoint, testified that Waypoint was not informed of Comcast’s
`
`prior collection efforts or the correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id. at 101:10–25; Def.’s Mot.
`
`Summ. J., Ex. G.) According to Waypoint’s account notes, on November 30, 2017, Comcast requested
`
`that the account be placed on hold as “under investigation” and with the legal team. (Def.’s Mot. Summ.
`
`J., Ex. G.) Later that same day, however, Comcast informed Waypoint that Plaintiff had not submitted
`
`the requested “fraud packet” and that collections could resume until that “fraud packet” was received.
`
`(Id.) Ms. Lozano, who had made the November 30, 2017 entry, could not recall any other circumstances
`
`related to that notation. (Lozano Dep. 57:8–24, 101:10–102:5.)
`
`
`
`In the meantime, Plaintiff checked and confirmed that his date of birth and social security
`
`number, provided by Comcast to Waypoint, matched his identifying information. (DSUF ¶ 37; PR ¶
`
`37.) Although Waypoint’s records and account notes indicated that it made attempts to contact Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff testified that (a) he never actually talked to anyone at Waypoint and (b) he last used the phone
`
`number listed on Waypoint’s records over ten years ago. (Ingram Dep. 87:1–24; DSUF ¶ 39; PR ¶ 39.)
`
`Plaintiff also received no letters from Waypoint. (DSUF ¶ 40; PR ¶ 40.)
`
`
`
`On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff, through counsel, disputed Waypoint’s trade line2 on Experian’s
`
`website. (DSUF ¶ 41; PR ¶ 41.) The report generated by Experian described Plaintiff’s dispute as
`
`stating, “THIS IS NOT MY ACCOUNT. PLEASE REMOVE THIS FROM MY CREDIT.” (Def.’s
`
`Mot. Summ. J., Ex. J.) Aside from this report, Plaintiff did not otherwise have any communication with
`
`Waypoint prior to suit being filed. (Lozano Dep. 102:1–5.)
`
`
`2
`“A tradeline is information about a consumer account that is sent, generally on a regular
`basis, to a consumer reporting agency. Tradelines contain data such as account balance, payment
`history, and status of the account.” https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-
`reports/market-snapshot-third-party-debt-collections-tradeline-reporting.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`On July 16, 2018 Waypoint received the dispute—known as an “Automated Credit Dispute
`
`Verification” or “ACDV”—from Experian through the e-OSCAR platform, which is an electronic
`
`system for handling disputes made to credit reporting agencies regarding collection accounts. (DSUF ¶
`
`64; Lozano Dep. 31:17–33:11.) The dispute was assigned to Waypoint’s employee, Samantha Pelfrey,
`
`an “Administrative Wage Garnishment Analyst.” (PCSUF ¶ 18; DR ¶ 18; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. K,
`
`Dep. of Samantha Pelfrey (“Pelfrey Dep.”) 14:1–16:9.) Ms. Pelfrey understood that, based on the
`
`dispute code, Plaintiff’s account was simply “asking for the account information and the balance.”
`
`(Pelfrey Dep. 24:14–25:7.) Ms. Pelfrey observed that the listed dispute code was “112: consumer states
`
`inaccurate information. Provide or confirm complete ID and verify all Account Information.” The
`
`ACDV did not have the consumer dispute code 103, which is associated with a fraud claim. (Def.’s
`
`Mot. Summ. J., Ex. J.; Pelfrey Dep. 38:2–17.) Ms. Pelfrey noted that, as part of the investigation for
`
`dispute code 112, “[t]he information would just be verified through the Artvita system,” which is a
`
`Waypoint internal database containing information about Waypoint’s accounts. (Pelfrey Dep. 24:8–12;
`
`Lozano Dep. 26:8–25.) Ms. Pelfrey updated Plaintiff’s address in the system and confirmed the account
`
`name and social security number. (Pelfrey Dep. 37:1–14.) Ms. Pelfrey testified that had there been a
`
`dispute code 103, indicating fraud, she would have taken different steps when reviewing Plaintiff’s
`
`account. (Id. at 38:2–17.)
`
`
`
`When responding to the ACDV, Waypoint’s system automatically marked Plaintiff’s account
`
`with compliance code “XB,” indicating that “Account information disputed by consumer under the Fair
`
`Credit Reporting Act Definition.” (DSUF ¶¶ 76–77; PR ¶¶ 76–77.) Waypoint’s trade line was then
`
`marked as disputed. (DSUF ¶ 78; PR ¶ 78.)
`
`Plaintiff eventually obtained a police report from the Philadelphia Police Department on July 18,
`
`2018. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. E.) The report indicated that the date of the incident was September
`
`1, 2017. (DSUF ¶ 25; PR ¶ 25; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. E.) The police told Plaintiff that because the
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`account was not big, he should just handle the matter with his lawyer. (Ingram Dep. 73:23–74:6.)
`
`Notably, however, the police report was not provided to Comcast until after suit was filed in September
`
`2018. (DSUF ¶ 27; PR ¶ 27.)
`
`
`
`On July 23, 2018, Comcast informed Waypoint that the dispute was “invalid” and that the
`
`responsible party was “Stefan Ingram.” (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G at p. 5.) On November 21, 2019,
`
`Plaintiff received a further report from Comcast indicating that it had researched the account, determined
`
`the debt valid, and deemed the dispute invalid. (Id. at p. 6.) Waypoint also noted Comcast’s direction
`
`that “[i]f customer states account is fraud, please advise customer to proceed with fraud claim process
`
`and SPA team. Please resubmit dispute if additional information submitted by consumer.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Experian’s November ACDV and Trade Line Removal
`
`On November 15, 2018, Waypoint received a second ACDV from Experian. (Lozano Dep.
`
`63:12-24.) Waypoint’s notes indicated “CBR dispute, EXP 1-3; involved in litigation. Consumer states
`
`the Com[c]ast account was the result of ID theft and he has a police report.” (Id. at 63:22–24; Def.’s
`
`Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G.) On November 16, 2018, Waypoint received a separate ACDV from Equifax.
`
`(Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G.) Upon notification of the dispute based on fraud, Waypoint deleted the
`
`disputed trade line and ceased collections activity on the account. (Lozano Dep. 105:1–24.)
`
`
`
`Subsequently, Comcast informed Waypoint that the dispute was “invalid.” Specifically,
`
`Waypoint’s notation stated, “Researched account, debt valid, If customer states account is fraud, please
`
`advise customer to proceed with fraud claim process and SPA team. Please resubmit dispute if additional
`
`information submitted by consumer.” (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G p. 6.)
`
`
`
`On November 29, 2018, following Plaintiff’s dispute, Waypoint closed Plaintiff’s account.
`
`(Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G.) As such, Comcast assigned Plaintiff’s account to another collection
`
`agency in December 2018. (DSUF ¶ 90; PR ¶ 90.)
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Procedural History
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`On September 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Waypoint, as well as Defendants
`
`Experian, Equifax, and Comcast, setting forth claims under the FCRA and the FDCPA against all
`
`Defendants. Plaintiff also brought a claim of defamation against Experian and Equifax, and a claim
`
`under the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law against Comcast. Following various settlements, the
`
`sole remaining Defendant is Waypoint.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 states, in pertinent part:
`
`A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or
`defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary
`judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the
`movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
`the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should
`state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Through summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims that do
`
`not present a ‘genuine dispute as to any material fact’ and for which a jury trial would be an empty and
`
`unnecessary formality.” Capitol Presort Servs., LLC v. XL Health Corp., 175 F. Supp. 3d 430, 433
`
`(M.D. Pa. 2016). A factual dispute is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the
`
`applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue is “genuine” only
`
`if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict for
`
`the non-moving party. Id.
`
`
`
`The initial burden is on the moving party to adduce evidence illustrating a lack of genuine, triable
`
`issues. Hugh v. Butler Cnty. Family YMCA, 418 F.3d 265, 267 (3d Cir. 2005). Once the moving party
`
`satisfies its burden, the non-moving party must present sufficient evidence of a genuine issue in
`
`rebuttal. Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 416 (3d Cir. 2015). The court must resolve all doubts as to
`
`the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in favor of the non-moving party. Saldana v. Kmart
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`Corp, 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001). Unsubstantiated arguments made in briefs are not considered
`
`evidence of asserted facts. Versarge v. Twp. of Clinton, 984 F.2d 1359, 1370 (3d Cir. 1993).
`
`III.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims
`
`Plaintiff’s claim against Waypoint is premised on 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b), a provision of the
`
`FCRA that regulates how the furnishers of credit information must respond when they are given notice
`
`of a dispute over consumer credit records. Section 1681s–2(b) provides, in relevant part:
`
`(1) After receiving notice pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title of
`a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information
`provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall—
`(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
`(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting
`agency pursuant to section 1681i(a)(2) of this title;
`(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting
`agency;
`(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or
`inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies
`to which the person furnished the information and then compile and
`maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis; and
`(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be
`inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation
`under paragraph (1), for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting
`agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation
`promptly—
`(i) modify that item of information;
`(ii) delete that item of information; or
`(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b).
`
`If a furnisher fails to comply with these requirements, then § 1681n and § 1681o “authorize[]
`
`consumers to bring suit for damages caused by a furnisher’s . . . breach” when that breach is willful or
`
`negligent. Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 864 (3d Cir. 2014). Ultimately, to state a claim in
`
`a suit arising under § 1681s–2(b), “a plaintiff must allege (1) that he notified a credit reporting agency
`
`(“CRA”) of the dispute under § 1681i, (2) that the CRA notified the party who furnished the information;
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`and (3) that the party who furnished the information failed to investigate or rectify the disputed
`
`charge.” Horsch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 94 F. Supp. 3d 665, 672 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Taggart
`
`v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., No. 09–1281, 2010 WL 114946, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2010), aff'd, 539 F.
`
`Appx. 42 (3d Cir. 2013)).
`
`Waypoint—as the agent of Comcast, who furnished the disputed information—alleges that
`
`Plaintiff’s FCRA claim fails as a matter of law. Specifically, Waypoint contends that Plaintiff is unable
`
`to establish that he raised a “bona fide dispute” as necessary to trigger any duty under the FCRA, 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
`
`The bona fide dispute requirement is inherent in the first element of an FCRA claim, which
`
`requires that a consumer give notification of a dispute. See Shap v. Capital One Fin. Corp., No. 11-cv-
`
`4461, 2012 WL 1080127, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2012). The FCRA itself provides some guidance in
`
`determining whether a dispute is bona fide:
`
`A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall
`provide a dispute notice directly to such person at the address specified
`by the person for such notices that—(i) identifies the specific
`information that is being disputed; (ii) explains the basis for the dispute;
`and (iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the
`furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(D) (emphasis added). This provision goes on to state that the duty to
`
`investigate and report disputes “shall not apply if the person receiving a notice of a dispute from a
`
`consumer reasonably determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, including—(i) by reason of
`
`the failure of a consumer to provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information.” 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(i).
`
`
`
`Interpreting these provisions, courts in the Third Circuit have held that a dispute is frivolous,
`
`and thus not bona fide, “if a consumer has failed to provide sufficient information to the furnisher to aid
`
`in the furnisher’s investigation of the dispute.” Palouian v. FIA Card Servs., No. 13-cv-293, 2013 WL
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`1827615, at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 1, 2013); see also Noel v. First Premier Bank, No. 12-cv-50, 2012 WL
`
`832992, at *9 (M.D. Pa. March 12, 2012). “If the dispute is frivolous, the furnisher cannot be liable to
`
`the consumer for the failure to investigate the completeness or accuracy of information under § 1681s-
`
`2(b).” Palouian, 2013 WL 1827615, at *3.
`
`
`
`In Noel v. First Premier Bank, the district court addressed—in the context of a motion to
`
`dismiss—the bona fide dispute requirement. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant bank placed
`
`information on his credit report containing incorrect amounts of balance, interest, and finance charges.
`
`2012 WL 832992, at *1. The plaintiff further averred that he raised the disputed matters in writing with
`
`the bank, but the bank had failed to respond or take action. Attached to the plaintiff’s complaint was
`
`bank correspondence responding to his dispute and directing that plaintiff needed to provide certain
`
`information to allow an investigation. Id. at *2. Plaintiff never provided that information, but rather
`
`sent a second letter substantively identical to his initial letter. Id. The plaintiff filed suit under the
`
`FCRA, and the defendant bank moved to dismiss.
`
`
`
`The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, noting that a failure to report a meritless dispute does
`
`not give rise to a violation of § 1681s-2(b). Id. at *8. It also concluded that “if a consumer does not
`
`comply with the submission requirements of § 1681s-2(a)(8)(D) or if a dispute is determined to be
`
`frivolous or irrelevant under § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F), the furnisher has no duty to report the debt as disputed
`
`under § 1691s-2(a)(3) and is not subject to liability under § 1681s-(2)(b). Id. at *9. The court observed
`
`that the plaintiff in that case had not provided the defendant with any additional information:
`
`Because Plaintiff provided such scant information to Defendant in his
`initial correspondence and,
`following
`receipt of Defendant's
`correspondence, did not provide any additional information, we
`conclude Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of § 1681s2(a)
`(8)(D)(iii) because Plaintiff did not submit, as requested by Defendant,
`“all supporting documentation or other information reasonably required
`to substantiate the basis of the dispute.” . . . Similarly, Plaintiff's request
`may be deemed frivolous or irrelevant pursuant to § 1681s–2
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`(a)(8)(F)(i)(I) because Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information
`to investigate.
`
`Id. at *10 (internal citations omitted). The court granted the motion to dismiss, noting that its decision
`
`was “based upon the information provided by Plaintiff to Defendant” and that “Plaintiff’s after-the-fact
`
`elaboration on the information contained in the correspondence and argument based on what he intended
`
`to request/assert regarding the basis for his dispute are not germane to our decision.” Id.
`
`
`
`Similarly, in Palouian v. FIA Card Services, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant furnished
`
`derogatory information about the plaintiff’s account to credit reporting agencies. 2013 WL 1827615, at
`
`*1. The plaintiff disputed the accounts in writing with the relevant credit bureaus, but the defendant
`
`claimed to have verified the accounts with the agencies. Id. Attached to the plaintiff’s complaint were
`
`letters and documentation reflecting that the defendant attempted to get in touch with plaintiff and
`
`indicating that if it did not hear from the plaintiff within fourteen days, it would deem the matter resolved.
`
`Id. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that the plaintiff had not shown that he provided
`
`sufficient information to the defendant to enable the defendant to investigate his dispute. Id. at *4.
`
`Accordingly, it found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that his dispute was bona fide. Id.
`
`
`
`This case presents similar situations to the Noel and Palouian cases, albeit in the context of a
`
`motion for summary judgment, thus imposing an evidentiary burden on Plaintiff. The evidence is
`
`undisputed that Plaintiff, through his attorney, sent a letter to Comcast stating that he did not believe the
`
`account at issue was his. Thereafter, Comcast indicated that it would mark the account as under
`
`investigation but stated that Plaintiff needed to send a completed FTC affidavit, proof of residence, a
`
`police report or incident report, and a valid government-issued photo identification card. Three weeks
`
`after Comcast sent its letter to Plaintiff, Comcast placed the account with Waypoint for collection.
`
`Although Comcast originally requested that the account be placed on hold as “under investigation” and
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`with the legal team, shortly thereafter, it informed Waypoint that Plaintiff had not submitted the
`
`requested “fraud packet” and that collections could resume until that fraud packet was received.
`
`
`
`Importantly, Plaintiff has admitted that he never submitted the FTC affidavit. Although Plaintiff
`
`eventually produced a police report, his driver’s license, and address history during discovery in this
`
`case, Plaintiff has produced no evidence that he ever gave these items to Comcast or Waypoint at any
`
`time prior to suit or during the relevant events in question. While Plaintiff twice disputed Waypoint’s
`
`trade line through the consumer reporting agencies—once on July 6, 2018 and once on November 15,
`
`2018—Plaintiff admitted to making no other effort to contact Waypoint prior to suit being filed.
`
`Comcast specifically informed Waypoint that both of these disputes were “invalid” and that if Plaintiff
`
`believed the account was fraud, he was required to submit the additional information requested. On
`
`November 29, 2018, Waypoint closed Plaintiff’s account when Comcast assigned it to another agency.
`
`
`
`In order to deflect summary judgment, Plaintiff has the burden of coming forward with evidence
`
`showing that he submitted a bona fide dispute. Because Plaintiff provided such scant information in his
`
`initial correspondence and failed to provide any additional information following receipt of Comcast’s
`
`correspondence, I conclude that Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of § 1681s2(a)(8)(d)(iii)
`
`because he did not submit “all supporting documentation or other information reasonably required to
`
`substantiate the basis of the dispute.” Moreover, Plaintiff’s request for an investigation may be deemed
`
`frivolous—as set forth in § 1681s-2(a)(8)(F)(i)(I)— because he failed to provide sufficient information
`
`upon which Waypoint could investigate. Plaintiff’s post-suit efforts to substantiate his claims of fraud
`
`are irrelevant to whether he submitted a bona fide dispute. Absent such a bona fide dispute, submitted
`
`to Comcast and communicated to Waypoint as Comcast’s agent, Waypoint’s duty to investigate under
`
`the FCRA was not triggered.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`Even viewing the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, I find, as a matter of
`
`law, that Plaintiff’s FCRA claim against Waypoint must fail.3
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Claims
`
`Defendant Waypoint also moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim.
`
`The FDCPA is an explicitly remedial statute, passed by Congress “to eliminate abusive debt
`
`collection practices by debt collectors.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e). To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff
`
`must establish the following: “(1) [the plaintiff] is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3)
`
`the defendant’s challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a ‘debt’ as the [FDCPA] defines it,
`
`and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt.” Daniels
`
`v. Solomon & Solomon P.C., 751 F. App’x 254, 256 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Douglass v. Convergent
`
`Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299, 303 (3d Cir. 2014)). For purposes of summary judgment, Waypoint does
`
`not contest the first three elements, but rather argues, under the fourth element, that Plaintiff has failed
`
`to produce any evidence of Waypoint’s violation of any provision of the FDCPA.
`
`The Amended Complaint contends that Waypoint allegedly violated several provisions of the
`
`FDCPA: 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, e(2), e(8), e(10), f, f(1).
`
`
`
`1.
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2), (8), and (10)
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1692e provides, in pertinent part:
`
`
`
`
`3 Waypoint’s Motion raises three additional arguments as to the FCRA claim: (1) Plaintiff has
`failed to establish that any information reported by Waypoint was factually “inaccurate or incomplete”;
`(2) Waypoint’s investigation of the first ACDV received in July 17, 2018, when considered in light of
`the scant information provided, was reasonable; and (3) Plaintiff has produced no evidence showing that
`Waypoint’s alleged inaccurate reporting was a substantial factor in causing him actual harm.
`
`Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, I find that genuine issues of material
`fact would likely preclude summary judgment on these arguments. Indeed, the issue of whether a
`furnisher’s post-dispute investigation was reasonable is “normally a question for trial unless the
`reasonableness or unreasonableness of the procedures is beyond question.” Seamans v. Temple Univ.,
`744 F.3d 853, 864–65 (3d Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). As I have already found as a matter of law,
`however, that Plaintiff failed to present a bona fide dispute, I need not address this issue further.
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-03776-MSG Document 110 Filed 06/30/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading
`representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.
`Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following
`conduct is a violation of this section:
`. . .
`(2) The false representation of--
`(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or
`(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully
`received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.
`(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an
`attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.
`(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will
`result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure,
`garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person
`unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to
`take such action.
`
` .
`
` . .
`(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit
`information which is known or which should be known to be false,
`including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
`. . .
`
`(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or
`attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
`consumer.
`
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2), (8), (10).
`
`
`
`When analyzing the communications or representations giving rise to the FDCPA claim, courts
`
`routinely apply the “least sophisticated debtor standard.” Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, 791 F.3d 413,
`
`418 (3d Cir. 2015). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that while
`
`this standard is “lower than the standard of a reasonable debtor,” it is an objective test tha