Facts

In 2019, Eric Mitchell took out a second mortgage loan on his home with Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS), who began servicing the loan in January 2020. Then, in April 2020, because his economic situation was negatively-impacted by COVID-19, Mitchell called SLS using their interactive voice response system, requesting a three-month loan forbearance. The system provided three options that would best fit his needs and Mitchell chose "loss of income or lessened hours." At that time, Mitchell was current on his loan payments, and SLS approved the forbearance plan, sending Mitchell a letter, allowing him to defer payments from May 1, 2020 through July 1, 2020, and stating that during the forbearance period there would be no delinquent reporting made to the credit bureaus as long as Mitchell made payments according to the plan detailed in the letter. On June 24, 2020, Mitchell again called SLS seeking an extension of three more months as he was still experiencing hardship. SLS again approved, and sent a letter extending the forbearance until October 1, 2020, stating that during the forbearance period, the account would be reported to the credit bureaus as current.

In August 2020, while still under the forbearance plan, Mitchell sought to purchase a $96,000 vehicle which he tried to finance. However, after he was unable to obtain financing from the dealership and from two other banks, he started trying to contact SLS, contending that the information they were providing to the credit bureaus was inaccurate. SLS, after concluding that it was correctly reporting Mitchell's account, declined to modify its reports. Mitchell then filed suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged claims for violations of the Fair Reporting Credit Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Unfair Competition Law, plus breach of contract and negligence. Plaintiff contended that defendant, instead of using the code indicating "No payment history available this month," should have used the code indicating "0 payments past due (current account)." Because of this inaccuracy, plaintiff was unable to obtain financing.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it correctly reported plaintiff's payment history as consistent with the codes provided; defendant at all relevant times reported plaintiff's loan status as "current," reported no date of first delinquency, and reported zero past due balance.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot.