Frank Boggio v. USAA Federal Savings Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that summary judgment for the defendant was unwarranted where the plaintiff offered evidence that the furnisher’s policy “prohibited its employees from performing anything more than a cursory confirmation of his status before reporting back to a CRA”
• holding that the FCRA “expressly precludes consumers from enforcing” section 623(a)
• elaborating on agreement between the circuit courts concerning the fact that “investigation” under section 1681s–2(b)(1) denotes “something more than a merely cursory review”
• “§ 1681s–2(c) expressly precludes consumers from enforcing the requirement that furnishers, under § 1681s–2(a), initially provide complete and accurate consumer information to a CRA.”
• the FCRA provides a “private right of action against a furnisher [of credit information], but only for failing to comply with … § 1681s-2(b).”
• “[C]onsumers may step in to enforce their rights only after a furnisher has received proper notice of a dispute from a CRA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).