The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kram, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff pro se Philip Boothe brings this action alleging
defendant TRW Credit Data's ("TRW") violation of Sections
607(b) and 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA" or the
"Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and 1681i. The substance of
Boothe's complaint is that he was denied credit as the result
of TRW's having published an inaccurate credit profile.
Presently before the Court is TRW's motion, pursuant to Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order
granting it summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Boothe
opposes the motion pro se.
TRW is in the business of furnishing credit information to
its subscribers, which include banks and other lenders. This
information is compiled from public records and from
information submitted by the subscribers. TRW organizes this
information into credit profiles, which it sends to its
subscribers upon request. Consumers may request their credit
profile directly from TRW.
In January 1987, Boothe borrowed $200.00 from Avco Financial
Services ("AVCO"), a lender serving Southern California. In
June 1987, AVCO, as a TRW subscriber, requested and received
from TRW Boothe's credit profile. Subsequently, AVCO received
no further information relating to Boothe. Affidavit of Gloria
Micelli, sworn to May 18, 1990 ("Micelli Aff.") ¶ 17;
Plaintiff's Opposing Answer to Defendant's Memo of Law ("Pl.
Opp."), Exs. 26-28. AVCO continued to lend money to Boothe,
approving a $700.00 loan in June 1987 and an $800.00 loan in
On January 5, February 12 and June 15, 1987, TRW mailed to
Boothe copies of his credit profile in response to his
requests. On or about August 20, 1987, Boothe returned the
credit profile dated February 12, 1987 and disputed the
profile's inclusion of a bankruptcy petition Boothe had filed
in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York
in July 1981. On September 25, 1987, Boothe further objected
to his credit profile, contending that the reported balance
due on a loan from New York State Higher Education Services
("NYSHE") was inaccurate because it failed to reflect several
payments he had made to reduce the loan.
On December 9, 1987, December 28, 1987 and March 8, 1988,
Boothe wrote to TRW requesting that a consumer statement be
added to his credit profile noting that he still disagreed
with NYSHE and the accuracy of the bankruptcy petition.
Pl.Opp., Exs. B-2(a), E, F. On or about March 15, 1988, TRW
added a statement to Boothe's credit profile that read: "I
dispute the amount NYSHE says I owe," and immediately notified
Boothe of its inclusion of such statement. TRW did not include
a similar statement for Boothe's bankruptcy petition. Pl.Opp.,
In early May 1988, Boothe applied for, and was denied, a
$300.00 loan from AVCO. Pl.Opp., Exs. M & N. Boothe advised
TRW of AVCO's action in a letter dated May 16, 1988. Pl.Opp.,
Ex. G-1. In the letter, Boothe also complained that the
consumer statement added to his credit profile in March of
that year was not sufficiently specific. Id. In a letter dated
May 23, 1988, TRW requested Boothe to supply the "exact
statement" he wished to have included in his profile. Boothe
never responded to this request. Reply Affidavit of Mark S.
Sullivan, sworn to June 19, 1990 ("Sullivan Aff.") ¶ 12, Exs.
The gravamen of Boothe's complaint is that AVCO denied him
credit on the basis of an inaccurate credit profile from TRW.
Boothe also alleges that TRW failed to include a proper
consumer statement indicating that he disputed certain
information appearing in his credit profile. Specifically,
with respect to his bankruptcy filing, Boothe alleges that TRW
failed to incorporate a consumer statement reflecting that his
bankruptcy petition "was not a Petition for one who owed a big
sum of money; but was to ease the pressure of HUD . . . `off
my back', to resolve the circumstances." Rebuttal to Affidavit
of Micelli dated May 18, 1990, at ¶ 1. With respect to the
NYSHE loan, Booth alleges that TRW failed to include a
sufficiently specific statement indicating that he disputed the
balance of his AVCO loan. Boothe seeks $100,000.00 in damages
for economic loss and emotional distress stemming from TRW's
alleged failure to comply with certain FCRA requirements.
TRW now moves for an order, pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, granting it summary judgment
dismissing the complaint. TRW contends that the undisputed
facts establish that Boothe's credit profile was entirely
accurate and that it is entitled to summary judgment
dismissing the complaint as a matter of law.