Miller v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 24-3177 (DSD/EMB)
Jena Miller,
Plaintiff,
v.
Experian 	Information 	Services
Inc.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This 	matter 	is 	before 	the 	court 	upon 	the 	motion 	for 	summary
judgment 	and 	to 	exclude 	expert 	witness 	testimony 	by 	defendant
Experian 	Information 	Services, 	Inc. 	and 	plaintiff 	Jena 	Miller’s
motion to exclude expert witness testimony. 	Based on a review of
the 	file, 	records, 	and 	proceedings 	herein, 	the 	court 	grants
Experian’s 	summary 	judgment 	motion 	and 	denies 	the 	expert 	witness
motions as moot.
BACKGROUND
This 	Fair 	Credit 	Reporting 	Act 	(FCRA) 	dispute 	arises 	out 	of
allegedly 	inaccurate 	information 	on 	Miller’s 	credit 	report
relating to a dispute with her former landlord.
In 2021, Miller moved into an apartment under a one-year lease
(Property). 	Due 	to 	noisy 	neighbors, 	Miller 	moved 	out 	six 	weeks
later. 	The Property agreed to waive the lease’s early termination
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 8

2
fee 	in 	exchange 	for 	Miller’s 	agreement 	not 	to 	disparage 	the
Property. 	The 	agreement 	is 	referred 	to 	as 	the 	Mutual 	Recission
Agreement and Release of Claims (MRA). 	Loscheider Decl. Ex. D.
In December 2021, Miller posted negative reviews online about
the 	Property, 	ostensibly 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	MRA. 	Id. 	Ex. 	F.
Counsel for the Property sent cease and desist letters to Miller,
which went unheeded. 	Id. Ex. F. 	On January 10, 2022, the Property
charged 	Miller 	the 	early 	termination 	fee 	of 	$2,862 	due 	to 	her
breach of the MRA. 	Id.
It is undisputed that Miller has not remitted payment despite
the 	Property’s 	efforts 	to 	collect. 	The 	Property 	ultimately 	sold
the 	debt 	to 	Columbia 	Debt 	Recovery. 	Columbia 	then 	reported 	the
debt 	to 	Experian 	in 	November 	2023, 	and 	Experian 	included 	it 	in
Miller’s 	December 	14, 	2023, 	credit 	report. 	Id. 	Ex. 	I; 	Methvin
Decl. ¶ 29.
On 	April 	17, 	2024, 	Experian 	received 	a 	letter 	from 	a 	third
party 	disputing 	Miller’s 	debt. 	Methvin 	Decl. 	¶ 33; 	Loscheider
Decl. Ex. L. 	Experian responded to Miller and asked her to contact
Experian directly rather than through a third party to confirm her
dispute.1 	Loscheider Decl. Ex. M; Methvin Decl. ¶ 33. 	She did so
on May 14, 2024. 	Methvin Decl. ¶ 34; Loscheider Decl. Ex. M.
1 	The court will not go into greater detail regarding the third-
party 	contacts 	with 	Experian 	as 	they 	do 	not 	bear 	on 	the 	court’s
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 8

3
On 	May 	17, 	2024, 	Experian 	forwarded 	Miller’s 	letter 	and
supporting documents to Columbia and requested confirmation of the
debt. 	Methvin Decl. ¶ 34. 	On May 21, Columbia certified that it
investigated 	Miller’s 	dispute 	and 	concluded 	that 	the 	information
about the debt was accurate. 	Id.
On August 9, 2024, Miller commenced this suit against Experian
and other credit reporting agencies that have since been dismissed.
She 	alleges 	various 	violations 	of 	the 	FCRA. 	She 	seeks 	statutory
and 	actual 	damages 	based 	on 	her 	claim 	that 	Experian’s 	reporting
caused 	her 	credit 	rating 	to 	suffer 	and 	that 	she 	has 	suffered
emotionally as a result. 	Experian now moves for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Standard of Review
“The 	court 	shall 	grant 	summary 	judgment 	if 	the 	movant 	shows
that 	there 	is 	no 	genuine 	dispute 	as 	to 	any 	material 	fact 	and 	the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
A fact is material only when its resolution affects the outcome of
the 	case. 	Anderson 	v. 	Liberty 	Lobby, 	Inc., 	477 	U.S. 	242, 	248
(1986). 	A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could
determination.
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 8

4
cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party. 	See
id. at 252.
On a motion for summary judgment, the court views all evidence
and 	inferences 	in 	a 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	the 	nonmoving 	party.
Id. at 255. 	The nonmoving party, however, may not rest upon mere
denials 	or 	allegations 	in 	the 	pleadings, 	but 	must 	set 	forth
specific 	facts 	sufficient 	to 	raise 	a 	genuine 	issue 	for 	trial.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. 	A party asserting that a genuine dispute
exists 	- 	or 	cannot 	exist 	- 	about 	a 	material 	fact 	must 	cite
“particular 	parts 	of 	materials 	in 	the 	record.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
56(c)(1)(A). 	If a plaintiff cannot support each essential element
of 	a 	claim, 	the 	court 	must 	grant 	summary 	judgment 	because 	a
complete 	failure 	of 	proof 	regarding 	an 	essential 	element
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. 	Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 322-23.
II. 	Merits
Miller alleges that Experian violated § 1681e(b) and § 1681i
of the FCRA by including her debt with the Property on her credit
report 	and 	failing 	to 	reinvestigate 	the 	debt 	after 	she 	disputed
its accuracy. 	She explains that even if she were in breach of the
MRA, 	the 	property 	was 	not 	entitled 	to 	seek 	the 	early 	termination
fee, which is the amount reflected on her credit report. 	The court
is unpersuaded by Miller’s position.
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 8

5
The 	FCRA 	outlines 	procedural 	and 	substantive 	requirements
designed 	to 	“ensure 	fair 	and 	accurate 	credit 	reporting, 	promote
efficiency 	in 	the 	banking 	system, 	and 	protect 	consumer
privacy.” 	Poehl 	v. 	Countrywide 	Home 	Loans, 	Inc., 	528 	F.3d 	1093,
1096 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551
U.S. 47, 52 (2007)). 	Section 1681e(b) requires consumer reporting
agencies like Experian to “follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum 	possible 	accuracy 	of 	the 	information” 	contained 	in 	a
consumer's credit report. 	15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
To prevail on a claim under § 1681e(b), Miller must establish
that 	Experian 	“failed 	to 	follow 	reasonable 	procedures 	to 	assure
maximum possible accuracy and that this failure caused inaccurate
information 	to 	appear 	on 	her 	credit 	report.” 	Morris 	v. 	Experian
Info. 	Sols., 	Inc., 	478 	F. 	Supp. 	3d 	765, 	768 	(D. 	Minn.
2020) (quotation 	omitted) 	(citing Hauser 	v. 	Equifax, 	Inc., 	602
F.2d 811, 814–15 (8th Cir. 1979)).
Section 	§ 1681i 	requires 	credit 	reporting 	agencies 	like
Experian 	to 	“reinvestigate 	and 	confirm 	... 	the 	disputed
information” 	once 	it 	receives 	a 	dispute 	letter 	from 	a
consumer. 	Reed v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d
1109, 	1113 	(D. 	Minn. 	2004) (citing 15 	U.S.C. 	§ 1681i(a)(1)(A)).
Reinvestigation entails “notify[ing] the furnisher of the disputed
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 5 of 8

6
information 	of 	the 	substance 	of 	the 	dispute 	and 	provid[ing] 	it
with 	all 	relevant 	information 	received 	from 	the 	consumer.”
Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A)-(B)).
The 	court’s 	analysis 	begins 	and 	ends 	with 	the 	question 	of
whether 	Experian 	accurately 	reported 	Miller’s 	debt. 	See 	Paul 	v.
Experian 	Info. 	Sols., 	Inc., 	793 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	1098, 	1103 	(D. 	Minn.
2011) 	(“[W]ithout 	a 	showing 	that 	the 	reported 	information 	was 	in
fact inaccurate, a claim brought under § 1681i must fail.”); Murphy
v. Midland Credit Mgmt, Inc., 456 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1089 (E.D. Mo.
2006) 	(“[A]ccurate 	reporting 	by 	a 	credit 	reporting 	agency 	is 	a
complete 	defense 	to 	... 	a 	section 	1681 	e(b) 	claim). 	The 	record
establishes Experian did so.
As noted, Miller argues that the report is inaccurate because
she did not actually breach the MRA and that, even if she did, the
Property 	is 	not 	permitted 	to 	seek 	the 	otherwise 	waived 	early
termination 	fee. 	In 	other 	words, 	Miller 	is 	collaterally
challenging 	the 	Property’s 	legal 	claim 	against 	her 	rather 	than
disputing a factual inaccuracy in Experian’s reporting. 	See Denan
v. 	Trans 	Union 	LLC, 	959 	F.3d 	290, 	297 	(7th 	Cir. 	2020) 	(“What
plaintiffs 	call 	‘legally 	inaccurate’ 	and 	‘legally 	incorrect’
information 	amounts 	to 	non-adjudicated 	legal 	defenses 	to 	their
debts.”); DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir.
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 6 of 8

7
2008) 	(holding 	that 	the 	validity 	of 	a 	debt 	is 	“not 	a 	factual
inaccuracy”).
The 	law 	is 	clear 	that 	credit 	reporting 	agencies 	are 	neither
equipped 	nor 	required 	to 	determine 	the 	merits 	of 	such 	legal
disputes. 	See Rydholm v. Equifax Info. Sols., Inc., 44 F.4th 1105,
1109 	(8th 	Cir. 	2022) 	(“We 	join 	our 	sister 	circuits 	in 	rejecting
the 	invitation 	to 	mandate 	that 	[credit 	reporting 	agencies] 	hire
individuals 	with 	legal 	training 	to 	preemptively 	determine 	the
validity 	of 	reported 	debts.”); 	Wright 	v. 	Experian 	Info. 	Sols.,
Inc., 	805 	F.3d 	1232, 	1242 	(10th 	Cir. 	2015) 	(holding 	that 	credit
reporting 	agencies 	are 	not 	required 	to 	“resolve 	legal 	disputes
about the validity of the underlying debts they report.”); Denan,
959 	F.3d 	at 	297 	(holding 	that 	the 	FCRA 	does 	not 	require 	credit
reporting agencies to resolve legal issues relating to a consumer’s
debt); 	Carvalho 	v. 	Equifax 	Info. 	Servs., 	LLC, 	629 	F.3d 	876, 	892
(9th 	Cir. 	2010) 	(“Because 	[credit 	reporting 	agencies 	are 	ill
equipped 	to 	adjudicate 	contract 	disputes, 	courts 	have 	been 	loath
to 	allow 	consumers 	to 	mount 	collateral 	attacks 	on 	the 	legal
validity 	of 	their 	debts 	in 	the 	guise 	of 	FRCA 	reinvestigation
claims.”); DeAndrade, 523 F.3d at 68 (holding that the validity of
a 	debt 	is 	legal 	issue 	that 	a 	credit 	reporting 	agency 	is 	“neither
qualified nor obligated to resolve under the FRCA”).
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Based 	on 	this 	authority, 	Experian’s 	reporting 	of 	the 	debt,
even 	though 	in 	dispute, 	does 	not 	constitute 	a 	violation 	of 	the
FCRA. 	Miller 	has 	failed 	to 	establish 	an 	inaccuracy 	necessary 	to
proceed 	with 	her 	claims 	under 	§ 	1681e(b) 	and 	§ 	1681i. 	No
reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.2
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 108] is granted;
2. 	The 	motions 	to 	exclude 	expert 	testimony 	[ECF 	Nos. 	118
and 125] are denied as moot; and
3. 	This case is dismissed with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: 	April 21, 2026 	/s Paul A. Magnuson for
David S. Doty, Judge
United Stated District Court
2 	Even 	if 	Experian 	had 	reported 	an 	inaccuracy, 	the 	record
does 	not 	support 	a 	finding 	that 	its 	investigation 	and
reinvestigation processes were statutorily insufficient.
CASE 0:24-cv-03177-DSD-EMB Doc. 160 Filed 04/21/26 Page 8 of 8