## Facts

- Citibank issued Nkiambi Jean Lema a Visa credit card in May 1989.
- The account became delinquent by September 1990.
- By May 1991, Lema and Citibank agreed to settle the account for 70% of the then-balance (about $3,090), and Lema completed payments by November 1991.
- In March 1992, Lema received collection notices claiming a balance of $3,272.43 on the same account.
- In July 1992, Citibank assigned an “R9” rating to Lema’s account, described as the most unfavorable rating.
- Lema was later denied credit by other lenders.
- In October 1992, Lema notified Citibank that the reported information was inaccurate and did not receive a satisfactory correction.
- In December 1994, Citibank asserted an additional amount remained due; Lema paid it in March 1995.
- When Lema sued in October 1995, the R9 rating remained on his account with consumer reporting agencies.

## Issues

1. Whether a creditor that furnishes allegedly inaccurate account information to consumer reporting agencies can be held liable under FCRA provisions directed at “consumer reporting agencies.”
2. Whether a state-law negligence claim based on duties alleged to arise from the FCRA is barred by the FCRA’s remedial and immunity scheme.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the FCRA claim (Count I).
- The court held Citibank, as a furnisher reporting its own account experience, was not a “consumer reporting agency” for purposes of the statutory provisions invoked and therefore was not liable under those provisions on the undisputed record.
- The court dismissed the negligence claim (Count II) without prejudice because it was premised on FCRA-created duties and conflicted with the federal statutory scheme governing credit reporting activity.

## Legal Principles

- FCRA liability under provisions regulating “consumer reporting agencies” requires that the defendant fit the statutory definition of a consumer reporting agency—i.e., an entity that regularly assembles or evaluates consumer credit information to furnish consumer reports to third parties.
- A creditor that supplies information about its own relationship with a consumer to consumer reporting agencies does not, by that act alone, become a consumer reporting agency.
- State-law tort claims that seek to impose liability for conduct governed by the FCRA may be barred where the claim depends on FCRA duties and would circumvent the statute’s specified remedies and qualified protections for reporting activity.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the plaintiff’s FCRA theory failed because the defendants were furnishers rather than consumer reporting agencies under the provisions asserted, and it dismissed without prejudice a parallel negligence claim that attempted to recast alleged FCRA violations as state-law tort liability.


Lema v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 935 F. Supp. 695 (D. Md. 1996)