NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-1398
__________
DEANNA SCARBO,
Appellant
v.
WISDOM FINANCIAL, doing business as East Coast Funding Group Inc;
TRANSUNION; EXPERIAN; EQUIFAX; CREDIT ONE BANK;
LVNV FUDING LLC, doing business as Resurgent Capital Services;
MAJOR FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL BANK NA;
US DEPT. OF EDUCATION, doing business as GLEL
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-20-cv-05355)
District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 8, 2022
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 9, 2022)
___________
OPINION*
___________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Deanna Scarbo, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”) and Great Lakes Educational Loan
Services (“Great Lakes”). For the following reasons, we will affirm.
I.
In October 2020, Scarbo filed a civil complaint alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., against numerous consumer
reporting agencies (“CRAs”) and furnishers of credit information.1 Scarbo’s operative
amended complaint alleged that, despite various disputes she had submitted to CRAs, her
credit reports contained “false, inaccurate and/or incomplete reporting,” resulting in the
denial of various loans. D.Ct. ECF No. 35 at 3. Specifically, Scarbo alleged that “LVNV
“reported inaccurate, incomplete, and inconsistent account information before and after
Plaintiff’s disputes to CRA,” and that Great Lakes “reported inaccurate, incomplete, and
misleading account information before and after Plaintiff’s disputes to CRA.” Id. at 4.
Scarbo sought damages “in an amount in excess of $400,000” and other relief. Id. at 5.
At the completion of discovery, LVNV and Great Lakes filed separate motions for
summary judgment. Each asserted that they reasonably investigated Scarbo’s disputes
and that the information they provided to the CRAs was accurate. Finding that Scarbo
had failed to carry her burden of establishing that either LVNV or Great Lakes had
1
Scarbo entered into settlement agreements with all other defendants in this action.
2
provided inaccurate or misleading material information to the CRAs, the District Court
granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. Scarbo appeals.
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a
grant of summary judgment, applying the same standard that the District Court applies.
Barna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 141 (3d Cir. 2017).
Summary judgment is appropriate “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). The nonmoving party “‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials
of his pleadings’ but, instead, ‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions will not
suffice.’” Jutrowski v. Twp. Of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 288-89 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting
D.E. V. Central Dauphin Sch. Dist., 765 F.3d 260, 269-69 (3d Cir. 2014)). We may
affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247
(3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
The FCRA “was crafted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate
information about them, and to establish credit reporting practices that utilize accurate,
relevant, and current information in a confidential and responsible manner.” Cortez v.
Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 06 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). While many of the provisions of the FCRA may only be enforced by federal
and state officials, see Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 864 (3d Cir. 2014), a
private cause of action against furnishers of information to CRAs is available for
3
violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), which requires a furnisher to investigate disputes
received from a CRA, and report back the results of the investigation. We have held that
an investigation into a consumer’s complaint must be “reasonable.” SimmsParris v.
Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355, 359 (3d Cir. 2011) (“It is only when the furnisher
fails to undertake a reasonable investigation … that it may become liable to a private
litigant”). “[A] reasonable procedure is one that a reasonably prudent person would
undertake under the circumstances.” Seamans, 744 F.3d at 864. However, “where a
given notice contains only scant or vague allegations of inaccuracy, a more limited
investigation may be warranted.” Id. at 865; see also Bibbs v. Trans Union LLC, 43
F.4th 331, 339 (3d Cir. 2022) (“[A]bsent any indication that the information is inaccurate,
the statute does not mandate further investigation.” (internal quotations and citation
omitted)). Whether an investigation is reasonable “is normally a question for trial unless
the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the procedures is beyond question.” Cortez,
617 F.3d at 709 (internal citation and quotations omitted).
In April 2019, Scarbo obtained a credit card from Credit One with a credit limit of
$300. By July, she had exceeded her credit limit and the account was past due. D.Ct.
ECF No. 102-3 at 20. Scarbo’s delinquent account was acquired by LVNV, who
reported the outstanding debt of $625 to CRAs in May 2020. In July 2020, Scarbo sent
letters to Experian and Trans Union disputing the LVNV account listing as inaccurate
and incomplete because the account number was incomplete and unidentifiable, the
account status was not listed, the date opened and original balance were inaccurate, the
payment history was incomplete, and the monthly payment, past due amount, and highest
4
balance were not listed. D.Ct. ECF No. 102-4 at 2. Scarbo provided no further specifics,
or any other documentation in support of her dispute.
LVNV was notified of the disputes by Trans Union and Experian. Trans Union
advised, “Claims paid the original creditor before collection status or paid before charge-
off. Verify Account Status, Payment Rating, Current Balance, Amount Past Due and
Payment History Profile” and “verify account number.” D.Ct. ECF No. 102-3 at 5, 34.
Experian indicated that “[c]onsumer states inaccurate information. Provide or confirm ID
and account information.” Id. at 102-3 at 4, 28. Despite the vague allegations and lack
of documentation to support the allegation that the original creditor (Credit One) was
paid, LVNV noted both disputes in their system and conducted an investigation in
accordance with their FCRA dispute policies and procedures. Investigation revealed that
the account status, payment history, current balance, amount past due, and account
number were accurate, but did note discrepancies in the spelling of Scarbo’s name and
street address, which were corrected. Id. at 4-6. It was not until after filing her lawsuit
that Scarbo alleged Credit One should have applied benefits from a credit protection
program to reduce her balance before charging it off. Scarbo asserted that LVNV should
have been aware of the credit protection program and was therefore liable for Credit
One’s alleged failure to apply the program’s benefits. Scarbo did not provide that
information as part of her disputes filed with the CRAs. Further, Scarbo produced no
evidence that she ever applied for or was entitled to any credit protection benefits.2
2
When questioned during her deposition on the credit protection program, Scarbo
testified that she could not recall if she ever informed Credit One of a qualifying event
5
Scarbo lodged a similarly vague dispute against Great Lakes, the servicer of
multiple student loans Scarbo obtained through the United States Department of
Education. Great Lakes consistently reported Scarbo’s account as being in good
standing, in deferred status, and never late. On July 3, 2020, Scarbo sent a letter to
Experian disputing the accuracy of the account listing for Great Lakes, alleging it was
inaccurate and/or incomplete because the account number was incomplete or
unidentifiable, the original creditor was not listed or identifiable, the account status and
original balance were inaccurate, the payment history was incomplete, the terms were
inaccurate, and the monthly payment amount, past due amount, and highest balance were
not listed. D.Ct. ECF No. 105-8 at 2. A similar letter was sent to Trans Union, minus the
allegations regarding account status, monthly payment amounts, and past due amounts.
D.Ct. ECF No. 105-9 at 2. Again, Scarbo provided no further information or
documentation to support the allegations.
After being notified of the disputes by Experian and Trans Union, see D.Ct. ECF
Nos. 105-4, 105-5, Great Lakes reviewed its records and verified the accuracy of the
information reported by Experian and Trans Union, including the original balance of
Scarbo’s account and the then-current balance of her account, and provided both with
Scarbo’s full account number. It was only during her deposition that Scarbo provided
more specific information regarding allegedly inaccurate and/or incomplete reporting by
Great Lakes, including, inter alia, her belief that the original balance was incorrectly
that might have triggered the benefits of the program, or if she had ever asked Credit One
about the application of benefits. D.Ct. ECF No. 102-2 at 17-18.
6
reported because it grouped the original balance of her many student loans together,
rather than just reporting the amount of her first such loan, despite her never requesting
the loans be ungrouped. See D.Ct. ECF No. 105-3 at 7-12. These more specific
allegations were not asserted at the time she filed her original disputes.
We conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor
of LVNV and Great Lakes on Scarbo’s claims under the FCRA. Scarbo failed to
introduce any direct or circumstantial evidence that either LVNV or Great Lakes did not
conduct reasonable investigations with respect to the disputed information. See Chiang
v. Verizon N. Eng. Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2010) (“The burden of showing the
investigation was unreasonable is on the plaintiff.”). Scarbo’s complaints about the
accounts, which were forwarded by the CRAs to LVNV and Great Lakes, were vague at
best and failed to specifically identify the alleged errors or otherwise explain or support
why information was believed to be inaccurate or incomplete. See Seamans, 744 F.3d at
865 (stating that “where a given notice contains only scant or vague allegations of
inaccuracy, a more limited investigation may be warranted.”). To the extent that Scarbo
claims that the investigations were unreasonable because a reasonable investigation
would have revealed the inaccuracies alleged, her conclusory assertion is insufficient to
defeat summary judgment. See Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 287 (3d Cir. 2014)
(“[A]n inference based upon a speculation or conjecture does not create a material factual
dispute sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” (quoting Robertson v. Allied Signal,
Inc., 914 F.2d 360, 382 n. 12 (3d Cir. 1990)). The discrepancies noted by Scarbo
7
regarding account opening dates and updates to addresses are not material to and have no
other bearing on the reasonableness of the investigations.3
III.
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court
3
We likewise agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Scarbo failed to establish
that the information furnished was either factually inaccurate, misleading, or material.
8