Case: 16-17632 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17632
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cv-00006-LGW-RSB
CYNTHIA W. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 1, 2017)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-17632 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Cynthia Taylor appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Georgia Power Company (GPC), in her action alleging a violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Taylor alleges that GPC failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) on a disputed debt that GPC
reported to Equifax. The district court determined that GPC’s investigation was
reasonable. After review, 1 we affirm the district court.
The FCRA places distinct obligations on three types of entities: consumer
reporting agencies, users of consumer reports, and furnishers of information to
consumer reporting agencies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b, 1681m, 1681s-2. It is
undisputed that GPC is a furnisher of information and must comply with the duties
imposed on furnishers by the FCRA. The FCRA requires a furnisher of credit
information to investigate information disputed by a consumer after receiving
notice of a dispute from a credit rating agency. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
We evaluate a furnisher’s compliance with its duty to investigate according
to the “reasonableness” of the investigation. Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.,
827 F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2016). “What constitutes a ‘reasonable
investigation’ will vary depending on the circumstances of the case.” Id. Where,
as here, “a furnisher reports that disputed information has been verified, the
1
“We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, viewing all facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Jurich v. Compass
Marine, Inc., 764 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2014).
2
Case: 16-17632 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 3 of 3
question of whether the furnisher behaved reasonably will turn on whether the
furnisher acquired sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the
information was true.” Id. at 1303.
The district court did not err in concluding that GPC conducted a reasonable
investigation. The undisputed facts show that GPC reviewed all the information it
had in its possession as the account holder. GPC verified Taylor’s name, birth
date, social security number, and the amount owed on the account, before verifying
the debt with Equifax. Taylor provided no evidence this investigation was
unreasonable other than her statement that she once told a GPC employee that she
did not owe on the account. GPC verified the account was indeed Taylor’s with
the information it had and that a debt was owed on the account. The record
contains no evidence that GPC unreasonably investigated her dispute.
AFFIRMED.
3