Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page1 of 10

151264
Selvamv.ExperianInformationSolutions

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT

SUMMARYORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY

ORDERFILEDONORAFTERJANUARY1,2007,ISPERMITTEDANDISGOVERNEDBYFEDERALRULEOF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY
CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.

AtastatedtermoftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSecond
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square,intheCityofNewYork,onthe7thdayofJune,twothousandsixteen.

PRESENT: ROBERTD.SACK,
RICHARDC.WESLEY,
GERARDE.LYNCH,
CircuitJudges.
_____________________________________

KAMALADOSSSELVAM,

PlaintiffAppellant,

v.

151264

EXPERIANINFORMATIONSOLUTIONS,INC.,

DefendantAppellee.

_____________________________________

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page2 of 10

FORAPPELLANT:

FORAPPELLEE:

KamaladossSelvam,prose,Ridgewood,NY.

IanSamuel,JonesDay,NewYork,NY.

AppealfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheEastern
DistrictofNewYork(Irizarry,J.).
UPONDUECONSIDERATION,ITISHEREBYORDERED,
ADJUDGED,ANDDECREEDthatthejudgmentoftheDistrictCourtis
AFFIRMEDinpart,VACATEDinpart,andREMANDEDforfurther
proceedingsconsistentwiththisorder.
AppellantKamaladossSelvam,proceedingprose,appealsfromajudgment
infavorofExperianInformationSolutions,Inc.(Experian)inhissuitunderthe
FairCreditReportingAct,15U.S.C.16811681x.1 Weassumetheparties
familiaritywiththeunderlyingfacts,theproceduralhistory,andtheissues
presentedforreview.
WereviewdenovoaDistrictCourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. Garciav.
HartfordPoliceDept,706F.3d120,126(2dCir.2013)(percuriam). Summary
judgmentmustbegrantedifthereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterialfact
AlthoughSelvamallegedviolationsoftheNewYorkFairCreditReportingAct,N.Y.
Gen.Bus.L.380,etseq.,inthedistrictcourt,hedidnotaddresstheseclaimsinhis
appellatebrief. Wethereforedeemthemabandoned. SeeLoSaccov.CityofMiddletown,
71F.3d88,92(2dCir.1995).
1

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page3 of 10

andthemovantisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw. Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).
Indeterminingwhetheragenuinedisputeexists,wemustresolveall
ambiguitiesanddrawallinferencesagainstthemovingparty. Garcia,706F.3d
at127. Aparty,however,cannotovercomesummaryjudgmentbyrelyingon
merespeculationorconjectureastothetruenatureofthefactsbecause
conclusoryallegationsordenials...cannotbythemselvescreateagenuineissue
ofmaterialfactwherenonewouldotherwiseexist. Hicksv.Baines,593F.3d159,
166(2dCir.2010)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
I.

ReasonableProceduresandReasonableReinvestigationClaims
WeconcludethattheDistrictCourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgment

toExperianonSelvamsreasonableproceduresandreasonablereinvestigation
claimsunder15U.S.C.1681(b)and1681(i),thoughwereachthisconclusionfor
differentreasonsthanthosestatedbythecourtbelow. TheDistrictCourt
improperlyheldthatSelvamfailedtoraiseanissueoffactregardingtheaccuracy
oftheinformationinExperiansreports. Selvamcorrectlyarguesthatthe
DistrictCourterroneouslycharacterizedhisdepositiontestimonyasadmitting
thathemayhavebeenmistakenaboutwhethertheaccountsweretheresultof
identitytheft. AppellantBr.9;Appx158. Selvamactuallytestifiedthathedid
3

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page4 of 10

notknowwhetherExperianhadmadeamistakebyputtingsomeoneelses
genuineaccountinhisreportorwhethertheaccountwastheresultofidentity
theft. Supp.Appx10. Moreover,SelvamarguesthatExperiansinclusionof
theGECRB/CareCreditaccountwasinaccurate. Forsupport,hesubmittedtwo
lettersaddressedtohimfromGECapitalRetailBank(GEorGECRB)from
December2012,whichstate:[o]urpreliminaryinvestigationhasrevealedthat
theabovereferencedaccountwasopenedwithoutyourknowledgeorconsent.
Appx12425. SelvamarguesthatafterExperianwasdirectedtodeletethe
LVNVFundingaccountwiththesameaccountnumberasoneoftheGEaccounts,
inJuly2012,Experianwasputonnoticethatitshouldquestiontheaccuracyof
theGEaccountbecauseitisextremelyeasytodiscernthesewerethesame
account. AppellantBr.19.
TheDistrictCourtdidnotmentionthelettersfromGECapitalRetailBank
initsopinion,presumablybecauseitagreedwithExperianthattheyare
inadmissiblehearsaythatcannotdefeatsummaryjudgment. Defendants
ReplyBr.inSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgmentat4n.8,Selvamv.Experian
Info.Sols.,Inc.,2013WL4547454(E.D.N.Y.Aug.28,2013)(No.12CV01828),ECF
No.81. Butthesummaryjudgmentruleprovidesthat[a]partymayobjectthat
4

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page5 of 10

thematerialcitedtosupportordisputeafactcannotbepresentedinaformthat
wouldbeadmissibleinevidence. Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c)(2)(emphasisadded).
Wehavesaidthatthepartyopposingsummaryjudgmentcannotrelyon
inadmissiblehearsayinopposingamotionforsummaryjudgment[]absenta
showingthatadmissibleevidencewillbeavailableattrial. BurlingtonCoatFactory
WarehouseCorp.v.EspritDeCorp.,769F.2d919,924(2dCir.1985)(internal
citationsomitted)(emphasisadded). Where,ashere,thepartyopposing
summaryjudgmentisactingprose,theCourthasadutytoconstruehis
submissionswithspecialsolicitude. See,e.g.,Triestmanv.Fed.BureauofPrisons,
470F.3d471,47475(2dCir.2006)(notingthatwemustreadprosesubmissions
withspecialsolicitudeandobservingthatthisCourtspolicyofliberally
construingprosesubmissionsisdrivenbytheunderstandingthatimplicitinthe
rightofselfrepresentationisanobligationonthepartofthecourttomake
reasonableallowancestoprotectproselitigantsfrominadvertentforfeitureof
importantrightsbecauseoftheirlackoflegaltraining(alterationsandinternal
quotationmarksomitted)). AffordingSelvamthespecialsolicitudethathis
submissionsaredue,weconcludethattheGElettersthemselves,aswellasthe
underlyingrecordsleadingGEtowritetheletters,wouldalmostcertainlyfall
5

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page6 of 10

withinthehearsayexceptionforbusinessrecords,Fed.R.Evid.803(6),andthus
wouldbeavailableattrial.
ThoughtheDistrictCourtimproperlyheldthatSelvamfailedtoraisean
issueoffactregardingtheaccuracyoftheinformationinExperiansreports,it
properlygrantedsummaryjudgmenttoExperianonSelvamsreasonable
proceduresandreasonablereinvestigationclaimsbecauseSelvamhasfailedto
raiseagenuineissueastowhetherhesufferedanydamagesfromExperians
allegedlynegligentfailuretodetecttheinaccuracyoftheinformationaboutthe
GEaccount. EvenassumingthatthecourtshouldconsidertheGElettersthat
Selvamsubmittedinoppositiontosummaryjudgment,andthattheseletters
weresufficienttoraiseagenuineissueofmaterialfactthatExperianreported
inaccurateinformationforthesixmonthsafterExperianallegedlyhadreasonto
questiontheaccuracyoftheinformationprovidedbyGECRB/CareCredit,
Selvamhasnotallegedanyplausibleclaimfordamages. Ifacreditreporting
agencyisnegligentinfailingtocomplywithFCRA,itisliableonlyforactual
damagessustainedbytheconsumerasaresultofthefailure. 15U.S.C.
1681o(a)(1). Selvamdoesnotallegethatheappliedfororforwentapplyingfor
anycreditafterthedateonwhichExperianwasinformedtodeletetheLVNV
6

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page7 of 10

Fundingaccount,July7,2012andbeforetheGECRB/CareCreditaccountswere
deletedinDecember2012. BecauseSelvamdoesnotallegeanywayinwhichhe
wasdamagedbytheallegedinaccuracyduringthetimeperiodhealleges
Experianhadreason...toquestiontheaccuracyofthe...GEinformation,
AppellantBr.21,hedoesnotplausiblyallegehesufferedanyactualdamages.See
Casellav.EquifaxCreditInfo.Servs.,56F.3d469,475(2dCir.1995)(holdingthat
wherethereisnoevidencethatduringtheperiodinwhich[thecreditreporting
agency]carriedtheinaccurateinformationthatitprovidedplaintiffscredit
reporttoanythirdpartynorationaltrieroffactcouldinferthatanypotential
creditororotherpersoninplaintiffscommunitylearnedofanyhelpful
informationfromthedefendantcreditreportingagency).
Acreditreportingagencymayalsobeliableforstatutorydamagesofnot
lessthan$100andnotmorethan$1,000ifthefailuretocomplywithFCRAwas
willfull[],15U.S.C.1681n(a),whichincludesrecklessdisregard. SafecoIns.
Co.ofAm.v.Burr,551U.S.47,69(2007). AlthoughSelvamarguesthatthereis
sufficientproofthatExperianwillfullyviolatedvariousprovisionsofthe
FCRA,AppellantBr.27,hepointstonofactstosupportthisentirelyconclusory
argument,whichamountstospeculationorconjecture,Hicks,593F.3dat166.
7

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page8 of 10

Therefore,ExperianisentitledtosummaryjudgmentonSelvamsreasonable
proceduresandreasonablereinvestigationclaimsbecauseSelvamhasnotalleged
anissueofmaterialfactthathesufferedanyactualdamagesfromthealleged
inaccuracyorthatExperianactedwillfullyinallegedlyviolatingFCRA.2
II.

DisclosureClaim
Wefind,however,thatthedistrictcourtimproperlyconcludedthatthere

wasnodisputeofmaterialfactastoSelvamsconsumerdisclosureclaimunder
1681g. Indismissingthatclaim,thedistrictcourtreasonedthatalthough
[Experian]didprovide[Selvam]withablankcreditreportinFebruary2011,
[Experian]promptlyaddressedtheproblemthefollowingmonth. Appx159.
YetExperianadmittedonsummaryjudgmentthatitssystemhadcontaineda
secondfracturedPINforSelvamsinceearly2010,meaningittookatleastayear
foritsordinarycourseofbusinesstocorrecttheissue. Supp.Appx245. We
findthatthisinconsistencyraisesadisputeofmaterialfactastowhether
ExperiannegligentlyviolatedSelvamsrighttoobtainacopyofhiscreditreport.

ThisanalysishasnobearingonSelvamsdamagesclaimsunder15U.S.C.1681g
becausehepleadactualinjuriescausedbythedenialofacarloaninJanuary2011anda
mortgageinMayorJune2011whichbothpostdatedExperiansfailuretoprovide
Selvamareportthatcompliedwith1681g.
8

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page9 of 10

See15U.S.C.1681g(c)(grantingaconsumertherighttoobtainacopyofhis
creditreport);id.1681o(providingthatapersoncanbesuedfornegligent
violationsof1681(g).
Experiansargumentthatincompletenessisnotthesameasinaccuracyis
unavailing. AppelleeBr.8. Byitsownterms,1681grequiresconsumer
reportingagenciestoclearlyandaccuratelydisclose...[a]llinformation,not
allaccurateinformation. 15U.S.C.1681g(a)(emphasisadded). Thisruleisa
sensibleone. Thepurposeof1681gisnottoensurethatacreditreporting
agencyisdisclosingaccurateinformationtoconsumers;rather,itspurposeisto
enableconsumerstoobtaininformationinordertodisputeanypotential
inaccuraciesinthefilesothatinaccurateinformationisnotsenttothirdparties.
See,e.g.,id.1681g(c)(summarizingtheconsumersrightstoobtainanddispute
informationinconsumerreportsandtoobtaincreditscores).
Moreover,evenafterExperianmergedalltheinformationithadabout
SelvamintoasinglePIN,Experiandidnotcorrectitsfailuretoclearlyand
accuratelydisclosetotheconsumer[]allinformationintheconsumersfileatthe
timeoftherequestinviolationof1681g,becauseExperiandidnotsend
Selvamacorrectedreportbasedonhiscorrectedormergedfile. Selvamdid
9

Case 15-1264, Document 63-1, 06/07/2016, 1787520, Page10 of 10

notreceivethemergedfileuntilherequestedanotherreportafterhewas
deniedamortgageallegedlybecauseofnegativeinformationinthemerged
file. AreasonablejurorcouldconcludethatunderthesefactsExperianacted
negligentlyorwithrecklessdisregardofitsobligationtodisclose[a]ll
informationintheconsumersfile. Id.1681g(a)(1).
WehaveconsideredSelvamsremainingargumentsandfindthemtobe
withoutmerit. Accordingly,weAFFIRMinpart,VACATEinpart,and
REMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisorder.

FORTHECOURT:
CatherineOHaganWolfe,Clerk

10