Burke v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 1:10-CV-1064 AJT/TRJ, 2011 WL 1085874, at *4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2011)
Mr. Burke had sued his mortgage servicer, Litton Loan Services, and reached a settlement whereby the servicer agreed to “delete the trade line” on Mr. Burke’s credit report. Later, when Mr. Burke obtained a copy of his credit report, he found that information relating to his mortgage remained on his credit report. Mr. Burke sent a dispute to Experian stating that the entry should not be on the credit report and invited Experian to call him. Mr. Burke was unable to provide additional information due to a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement with Litton Loan.
Experian sent the dispute to Litton Loan, who incorrectly confirmed that the loan should remain. Experian conducted no investigation and simply reported back what was reported to it by Litton.
Mr. Burke again disputed the reporting on his credit report, explaining that he was unable to additional information, but that Litton Loan could. This time, Experian believed his dispute was duplicative of the prior dispute and therefore did not even send another Automated Consumer Dispute Verification to Litton Loan.
The Court ultimately denied the Summary Judgment motion of Experian holding that it could not conclude as a matter of law that Experian did or did not satisfy its obligations under Sections 1681e(b) or 1681(a)(1)(A), those provisions requiring Experian to investigate and re-investigate the information provided by the furnishers.