Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Fatoumata Samoura v. Trans

Fatoumata Samoura v. Trans

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

March 10, 2021, Decided; March 10, 2021, Filed

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-5178

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

KEARNEY, J.

Fatoumata Samoura agreed to pay back four student loans to Fedloan beginning in 2008. She fell at least 120 days behind on her loan payments by July 2014. Fedloan transferred her four loans to a new creditor by March 2015. She thereafter owed nothing to Fedloan after it transferred her long overdue loans. Ms. Samoura received her credit report from Trans Union at some unplead later time. Her credit report of an unplead date referenced a zero-balance owed to Fedloan but a pay status of account 120 days past due date. Her lawyers disputed Trans Union's reporting of the Fedloan obligation forty-two months after Fedloan transferred the loans.

Her lawyers, as they did in Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC decided by us approximately two weeks ago, argue Trans Union's report of [*2]  her Fedloan debt is patently inaccurate or materially misleading under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Under their reading, Ms. Samoura could not both have a zero-balance and a pay status of account 120 days past due even with the readily apparent close of the account upon transfer and graphic history of eight months of the loans due over 120 days before the identified transfer date. Ms. Samoura is mindful we already found this nearly identical language is not inaccurate or materially misleading in Bibbs. But her lawyers today cross-move for judgment as a matter of law to essentially ask us to reconsider Bibbs. They argue we erred in relying on inapposite cases, and we should liberally construe the Act in her favor and reserve questions of accuracy for the jury. We again studied our Bibbs analysis. We again find no amount of liberal construction can turn accurate reporting into a question of fact for the jury simply because the consumer concludes the reference is inaccurate or materially misleading. Ms. Samoura has a zero balance on loans 120 days past due when Fedloan closed her account. Both statements are accurate as confirmed by other references in the same report. Ms. Samoura does [*3]  not plead she paid off the Fedloan accounts before transfer. We might have a different result if she did.

As the parties cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings and even after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Samoura, we grant Trans Union's motion for judgment on the pleadings. We grant her leave to timely amend should she be able to plead a patently inaccurate or materially misleading statement based upon facts not presently plead. We deny Ms. Samoura's cross-motion for judgment.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44669 *; 2021 WL 915723

FATOUMATA SAMOURA v. TRANS UNION LLC

CORE TERMS

consumer, inaccurate, misleading, past due, credit report, court of appeals, reporting, matter of law, pleadings, transferred, accuracy, mortgage, excerpts, zero-dollar, loans, credit reporting, tradelines, disputed, alleges, argues, student loan, cases, motion to dismiss, Updated, listing, unplead, lender, misleading information, liberal construction, summary judgment