Just a few weeks ago, the Honorable Laurie J. Michelson of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division commented on the high number of identical lawsuits against Michigan First, covered here. Unfortunately, it did not take very long for Michigan First to be dragged into court again (See Euring v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, Civil Action No. 19-CV-11675, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119454 (E.D. Mich. July 8, 2020,) for the same charge, “negligently fail[ing] to conduct a proper investigation of Plaintiff’s dispute as required by 15 USC 1681s-2(b).” Plaintiff here also alleged that Michigan First “fail[ed] to direct Equifax and Trans Union to report the [] Tradelines with a monthly payment of $0,” and that the “Tradelines are inaccurate and creating a misleading impression on Plaintiff’s consumer credit file.” Plaintiff also asserted a claim against Michigan First for willful violation of the FCRA based on the same allegations.

Michigan First sought summary judgment on a number of grounds, but the Court focused on just the dispositive ground, which was that the “tradelines at issue … are not inaccurate.” (Emphasis added.) Adopting the FCRA analysis from Euring v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 19-CV-11675, 2020 WL 1508344 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2020),the Court emphasized that the reported monthly payments plainly indicated that both of plaintiff’s accounts were closed and charged off in 2015. Therefore, the non-$0 reported monthly payments could only be understood as the amounts plaintiff had agreed to pay when the loans were extended. And indeed, the “touchstone of the FCRA is accuracy.” Thus, the monthly payment amounts at issue were historically accurate, as was all of the other reported information, such as the date the accounts were opened, when plaintiff stopped making payments, and the credit limits.

Michigan First’s Summary Judgment was granted, adding to its winning streak, which we definitely would not want to jinx!