Case: 12-15408 Date Filed: 10/03/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15408
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-00489-SLB
CORY SINGLETERY,
individually and on behalf of class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(October 3, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and EVANS, * District
Judge.
*
Honorable Orinda D. Evans, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 12-15408 Date Filed: 10/03/2013 Page: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
After reading the briefs and the relevant parts of the record, and hearing oral
argument, we affirm the district court’s judgment based on its thorough and
persuasive opinion, with one modification.
The district court’s opinion states that: “Plaintiff has offered nothing to
show that he requested a disclosure on the adverse action hotline,” apparently
crediting Equifax’s evidence on that point. The opinion states that it “presented
evidence that plaintiff, or his father, had not requested an adverse-action disclosure
and that it had no record of an adverse action against plaintiff from GE Money.”
But there was evidence that Singletery requested a disclosure on Equifax’s
adverse action hotline—Singletery’s father testified in his deposition that he
requested one by speaking or typing in his son’s information when he called the 1-
800 number. At the summary judgment stage, the district court should have taken
the testimony of Singletery’s father as true. But that error does not undermine the
court’s conclusion that there was no evidence in the record from which a jury
could reasonably conclude that Equifax’s failure to provide the adverse notice
disclosure was willful. 1
AFFIRMED.
1
Singletery’s challenge to the court’s denial of his motion for class certification is moot
in light of our affirmance of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, so we do not
consider that issue.
2