Gatanas v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp.

Gatanas v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp.

Opinion

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

Nicholas Gatanas had an auto loan with American Honda Finance Corporation ("Honda"). He paid off the loan, but his credit report noted—inaccurately, in his view—that the account was late. So he sued Honda, alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Honda moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (DE 17.)¹ For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Gatanas contracted with Honda for an auto loan. (See Compl. ¶ 1.) He paid off that loan, and the account was closed. (See id. ¶ 15.) Honda provided information about the loan to TransUnion, LLC, a credit reporting agency ("CRA"). (See id. ¶ 16.) A credit report prepared by TransUnion stated that Gatanas' Honda account was closed with a $0 balance but the account was "30-59 days late." (Id. ¶ 15.) Because Gatanas was not "currently delinquent" on the account, he submitted a written dispute to TransUnion. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) In turn, [*2]  TransUnion notified Honda of the dispute. (Id. ¶ 16.)

Nonetheless, TransUnion and Honda did not conduct any further investigation into Gatanas' dispute, mark his account as disputed, or remove the misleading payment status from the account. (Id. ¶ 17.) Instead, TransUnion and Honda "summarily verified that the reporting was accurate, and closed [Gatanas'] dispute." (Id. ¶ 18.) According to Gatanas, "a reasonable investigation . . . would have determined that an account with a '$0' balance could not be late and past due." (Id. ¶ 19.)

B. Procedural History

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