Curtis J. Collins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

<!-- PageHeader="Case: 14-11111" -->

Date Filed: 03/19/2015

[PUBLISH]

# IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11111-AA

CURTIS J. COLLINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants,

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

BEFORE: MARTIN, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Case: 14-11111 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Page: 2 of 3" -->

On January 15, 2015, this Court reversed the district court's determination
that third-party publication is necessary for a consumer to be entitled to actual
damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
which requires a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation of disputed information contained in a consumer's credit file. We
remanded to the district court for further proceedings on Curtis J. Collins' claim
alleging a negligent violation of § 1681i(a). We affirmed the district court's grant
of summary judgment on Collins' claim that Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
willfully violated its duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under § 1681i(a).
Collins v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 775 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2015).
Collins requests we rehear the willfulness portion of our opinion.

Collins asserts Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70,
127 S. Ct. 2201, 2216 (2007), provides that if a CRA had "the benefit of guidance
from the courts of appeals . . . that might have warned it away from the view [of
the FCRA] it took," a jury question exists regarding whether the CRA willfully
violated the FCRA. He contends three courts of appeals have warned CRAs that it
is unreasonable to merely contact the creditor to verify the consumer's debt when
there is other information provided by the consumer that calls the creditor's data
into question; therefore a jury question is presented. See Cushman v. Trans Union
Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 226-27 (3d Cir. 1997); Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Case: 14-11111 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Page: 3 of 3" -->

280, 286-87 (7th Cir. 1994); Stevenson v. TRW Inc., 987 F.2d 288, 293-94 (5th Cir.
1993). We deny his petition because Collins did not raise the argument contained
in his petition for rehearing in his initial brief on appeal.1 See United States v.
Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2004). Collins premises his entire argument
on one sentence he did not cite, as interpreted through three circuit court cases he
did not cite. We did not decide the issue presented in Collins' petition for
rehearing, and neither do we decide the issue now.

1
' Nor did he raise it in his reply brief.