Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Ray Simmons, representing himself, sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and BMO Bank N.A. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He alleged that Experian failed to reasonably reinvestigate disputed information under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i and that BMO failed to reasonably investigate as a furnisher under § 1681s-2(b). He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and costs. According to the complaint, a December 2025 Experian report showed a BMO installment tradeline with a charge-off notation, an involuntary repossession notation, and a past-due balance of $57,265. Simmons alleged that the tradeline listed a last payment date of December 18, 2024, even though the account was charged off on April 12, 2023, which he called contradictory. He also alleged that his Experian-reported FICO score of 532 was far below his Equifax score of 810.
BMO moved to dismiss the claim against it. In findings and recommendations dated July 14, 2026, a magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and, after giving Simmons notice and a chance to respond, also recommended dismissing the claim against Experian, which had not moved. The findings gave the parties fourteen days to object. No objections were filed.
The Court’s Holding
Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley noted that no objections were filed, presumed the magistrate judge's factual findings correct, reviewed the legal conclusions de novo, and found the recommendations supported by the record and proper analysis. The order adopted them in full, granted BMO's motion, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The order itself is brief; its reasoning comes from the adopted findings.
As adopted, the findings concluded that Simmons had not alleged an injury in fact for Article III standing. A lower score at one bureau, without allegations that it was shared with third parties or affected an identified past or imminent transaction, was insufficient, so the court lacked jurisdiction over the entire complaint and dismissal with leave to amend was proper. The findings also addressed pleading defects. A payment date after a charge-off date is not inherently inaccurate, because a consumer may keep paying a charged-off debt. A repossession theory raised only in the opposition was not in the complaint and, in any event, did not show a conflict with a later payment. Attacks on the debt's legal validity or on missing documentation did not plead a factual inaccuracy, so the court did not reach the reasonableness of BMO's investigation.
The findings added that the complaint alleged no willfulness, that a lowered credit score alone is not actual damages, and that other district courts have held declaratory and injunctive relief unavailable to private FCRA plaintiffs. The claim against Experian failed for lack of a pleaded inaccuracy and damages. The findings also disregarded the opposition Simmons filed late because it differed from the version he served on BMO, and directed the Clerk to file the served version.
Key Takeaways
- The order adopts the magistrate judge's findings in full because no objections were filed, so the substantive analysis appears in those findings rather than in the district judge's two-page order.
- The dismissal is without prejudice, and Simmons must file an amended complaint within thirty days of the order's October 20, 2026 filing date.
- The findings treated a lower credit score at one bureau, with no alleged effect on any identified transaction, as insufficient to show Article III injury.
- The findings concluded that reporting a last payment date after a charge-off date is not inherently inaccurate.
- The order resolves only the pleadings and does not decide the merits of any amended claim; the findings warned that failure to amend would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order, not a published opinion, and it carries no binding precedential weight. Its value lies in showing how Eastern District of California judges handle self-represented FCRA claims: standing is examined first, and a score difference alone may not suffice under the reasoning of the unpublished Ninth Circuit decision the findings relied on.
For Simmons, the dismissal is not a final judgment. He may replead facts showing concrete harm, a factual inaccuracy in the BMO tradeline, and damages, while the findings direct that any amended complaint be complete in itself. Whether the amended pleading can cure those defects, and whether claims against both defendants proceed, remains open.