Bonner v. Navy Federal Credit Union et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WESTERN DIVISION
JORDAN BONNER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 7:26-cv-1288-EGL
)
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT )
UNION et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND1
Navy Federal Credit Union (“NFCU”) reports an account belonging to Bonner
as charged off with a balance of $4,008. Doc. 1-2 at ¶¶7–8. Bonner claims that he
reviewed his credit reports and found “inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and incomplete
information” on that account. Id. at 5 ¶2. He disputed it in writing, both with NFCU,
and through various credit reporting agencies which forwarded the disputes to
NFCU. Id. at 5 ¶2, 8 ¶9. Despite his disputes, the CRAs report different closure dates,
1 Because Plaintiff is defending against a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts his well-pleaded
factual allegations as true and construes them in the light most favorable to him. Lanfear v. Home
Depot, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267, 1275 (11th Cir. 2012).
FILED
2026 Oct-13 PM 12:26
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 8

2
removal dates, amounts, and include differing dispute remarks relating to the
account, resulting in damage to his credit. Id. at ¶¶13–29.
On June 16, 2026, Bonner sued Experian, Navy Federal Credit Union, Equifax
Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union, LLC in the Circuit Court of Pickens
County, Alabama. See Doc. 1-2 at 2, 4. Defendants removed the action on July 22,
2026. Doc. 1.
STANDARD
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. But those “[f]actual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. Although the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the
complaint, that principle does not apply to legal conclusions couched as factual
allegations. Id. Bonner did not respond to Experian’s motion to dismiss, but the
Court will still address the motion on its merits.
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 8

3
ANALYSIS
Bonner alleges that Experian negligently and willfully violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. Specifically, he claims that Experian (1) failed “to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of [his] credit
reports that [it] published to third parties;” and (2) “violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by
failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of [his] disputes.” Doc. 1-2 at ¶¶47, 57.
Experian argues that Bonner’s claims warrant dismissal because (1) he failed
to allege any specific injury arising from the alleged FCRA injuries; and (2) he failed
to properly plead his claims under §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i. Doc. 13 at 2. The Court
addresses these arguments in turn.
I. Standing
Experian contends that Bonner has not alleged that he suffered a concrete
injury arising from its supposed FCRA violations, and that he therefore lacks
standing. Id. at 3–5. Bonner claims that Navy Federal Credit Union inaccurately
“reported [his] account as charged-off with an alleged balance of $4,008,” Doc. 1-2
at ¶¶7–9, but Experian points out that the only thing tying it to that allegedly
inaccurate report is Bonner’s general allegation that various CRAs, including
Experian, reported divergent close dates, charge-off amounts, and other dispute-
related information concerning the tradeline, Doc. 13 at 3–5. Experian argues from
this that Bonner “does not allege that Experian reported any inaccurate information”
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 8

4
and that the mere allegation of “discrepancies” is insufficient to show that Experian
injured him. Id. at 5.
Bonner alleges he “reviewed the reporting of the Navy Federal account as it
appeared on Experian” and other CRAs, Doc. 1-2 at ¶14, and found that
“Experian … reports the account information differently than TransUnion and
Equifax,” id. at ¶15. While “Experian reports that the account is scheduled to remain
on [Bonner’s] credit report until January 2030,” id. at ¶16, and categorizes the
tradeline as “Completed investigation of FCRA dispute – consumer disagrees,” other
CRAs report different information, id. at ¶17. From this, he concludes that the CRAs
either “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation” or “lack[] a single, complete,
and verifiable account history.” Id. at ¶21. Bonner further claims that “Consumer
reports concerning [Bonner] were provided and sold to third parties for credit and
underwriting purposes.” Id. at ¶26. He says, “Defendants’ reporting and
reinvestigation failures” caused him to be “portrayed as a greater credit risk than he
actually was.” Id. at ¶27. This portrayal resulted in “damage to his credit reputation,
loss of credit opportunities, increased costs of credit, frustration, emotional distress,”
and that he lost time and suffered expenses “to correct his consumer reports.” Id. at
¶28.
Experian is correct that Bonner does not allege that it reported any inaccurate
information, but that does not deprive him of standing. To have standing, a plaintiff
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 8

5
need only plead that he has been injured in a way fairly traceable to the defendant’s
conduct, and that the injury is redressable by the court; he need not plead that he will
win, or facts suggesting he will. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 (1975)
(“[S]tanding in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s contention that
particular conduct is illegal.”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946) (Jurisdiction
“is not defeated … by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of
action on which petitioners could actually recover.”).
Bonner claims that Experian’s credit reports, alongside those of other CRAs,
caused him to be denied credit and to suffer other distresses. Doc. 1-2 at ¶¶26–29.
That is enough to constitute injury. Whether the report was inaccurate or Experian’s
procedures were reasonable are questions relevant only to whether Bonner has a
valid claim. Accordingly, Experian’s request to dismiss for lack of standing on this
basis is due to be denied.
II. Bonner’s Claims
Experian next argues that Bonner failed to provide factual allegations
sufficient to sustain his claims under §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i. Doc. 13 at 5–8.
Experian is correct.
A. Section 1681e(b)
“To state a claim under § 1681e, the plaintiff must show that the agency’s
report contained factually inaccurate information, that the procedures it took in
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 8

6
preparing and distributing the report weren’t ‘reasonable,’ and that damages
followed as a result.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 995 F.3d 937, 944 (11th Cir.
2021) (citations omitted). Absent a showing of an inaccuracy, “the reasonableness
of the reporting agency’s procedures turns out not to matter.” Erickson v. First
Advantage Background Servs. Corp., 981 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2020).
Bonner claims that Experian “violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the
preparation of [his] credit reports that [it] published to third parties.” Doc. 1-2 at ¶47.
He does not substantiate this conclusory allegation with any specific factual
allegations outlining what exactly those failures consisted of. And given the absence
of any allegation that the information Experian reported was inaccurate, see supra
at 3–5, Bonner’s claims would still warrant dismissal even if he had properly alleged
unreasonable procedures on Experian’s part, see Erickson, 981 F.3d at 1251.
Accordingly, Bonner’s claim under § 1681e(b) against Experian is due to be
dismissed.
B. Section 1681i
“A plaintiff bringing a claim under § 1681i must allege facts describing how
the consumer reporting agency failed in its reinvestigation duties.” Johnson v. Early
Warning Servs., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-5292, 2025 WL 4464139, at * 21 (N.D. Ga. Dec.
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 8

7
31, 2025), report and recommendation adopted as modified, 2026 WL 1096570
(N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2026) (citations omitted).
A plaintiff that merely alleges “that the reinvestigation was unreasonable
because [the CRA] did not delete or modify all the disputed inquiries” fails to
provide “sufficient factual content concerning how [the CRA] failed in its
reinvestigation duties.” Id.
Bonner’s sole allegation related to his § 1681i claim against Experian is that
it violated the statute “by failing to delete or modify disputed information that was
found to be inaccurate, incomplete[,] or unverifiable.” Doc. 1-2 at ¶60. Such an
allegation is substantially identical to the one dismissed in Johnson and thus clearly
fails to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.
Accordingly, Bonner’s claim against Experian under § 1681i warrants
dismissal.
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of 8

8
CONCLUSION
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Because Bonner fails to provide
sufficient factual allegations to sustain his claims under §§ 1681e(b) and 1681i, they
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Experian.
DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2026.
_________________________________
EDMUND G. LACOUR JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:26-cv-01288-EGL Document 18 Filed 10/13/26 Page 8 of 8