Re-Aging:Rosenberg v. Calvary Inv.: 1681c[a][4]

[David A. Szwak]

Slip Copy, 2005 WL 2490353 (D.Conn.)
United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

ROSENBERG v. CAVALRY INVESTMENTS, LLC
No. 3:03CV1087(RNC).
Sept. 30, 2005.

After review and over objection, the Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling (Doc. # 63) is hereby approved and adopted with the following clarifications and additions.
Defendant contends that it is not a consumer reporting agency and thus is not subject to liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(4). (Defendant's Objection to Recommended Ruling ("Objection") (Doc. # 66), at ¶ 3.) Section 1681c(a)(4) prohibits consumer reporting agencies from making reports containing "[a]ccounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years." The FCRA defines "consumer reporting agency" as a person who "regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties." 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f); see also Redhead v. Winston & Winston, P.C., 01 CIV. 11475(DLC), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17780, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2002) (observing that the FCRA distinguishes between consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies). There is no evidence in the record to suggest that defendant engages in such activity. Accordingly, based on the current record, defendant could not be held liable under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(4). This is relevant only insofar as it informs plaintiff's CUTPA claim because, as the recommended ruling states, plaintiff has not asserted an affirmative cause of action under the FCRA. (See Recommended Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment ("Recommended Ruling") (Doc. # 63), at 7-8 n. 3.)


Under the FDCPA, a debt collector may not misrepresent "the character, amount or legal status of any debt," 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A), or communicate credit information "which is known or which should be known to be false. "15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8). On the record before the court, the court cannot discern whether (1) the account belonged to the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff owed a debt or (3) the defendant should have known that the plaintiff did not owe the debt. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied on that ground. Defendant also contends that summary judgment should be granted because it merely reported dates to the credit agencies in accordance with the information it was given by Fleet Bank. In opposition, plaintiff argues that the debt was too old to report in the first instance and the defendant should not have provided any information to the credit agencies. "Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c, consumer reporting agencies are prohibited from reporting adverse credit information which antedates the report by more than seven years." Lendino v. Trans Union Credit Information Co., 970 F.2d 1110, 1111 (2d Cir.1992); 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(4). [FN1]