Jury Verdict Upheld in Losch vs. Experian Information Solutions Inc.

The case of Henry Losch vs. Experian Information Solutions Inc. (Case No. 22-12421) was an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concerning claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e & 1681i). This case followed a previous decision (Losch I) where the court reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Experian and remanded for a jury trial. The jury ultimately found in favor of Experian, and Henry Losch appealed.

Key aspects and rulings from this appeal include:

  1. Evidentiary Rulings: The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary decisions, including the admission of bankruptcy filings and Mr. Losch’s second amended complaint. These were deemed relevant to assessing the reasonableness of Experian’s policy and actions.
  2. Relevance of Bankruptcy Filings: The court disagreed with Mr. Losch that the bankruptcy filings were irrelevant, stating they supported the argument that Experian’s policy to not review bankruptcy court dockets when faced with a consumer’s claim of bankruptcy discharge was reasonable under the FCRA.
  3. Admissibility of Pleadings: The court ruled that Mr. Losch’s operative complaint was admissible as it was relevant to the question of whether it was Nationstar Mortgage or Experian (or both) that failed to act reasonably.
  4. Judicial Notice Instruction: The court did not find reversible error in the instruction regarding judicial notice of the complaint, clarifying that it took judicial notice of the complaint’s filing and contents, not the truth of the allegations.
  5. Relevance of Other CRAs’ Reports: The court recognized an error in deeming evidence of accurate reporting by other credit reporting agencies irrelevant but noted this did not constitute reversible error due to hearsay concerns.
  6. Jury Instructions on Burden of Proof: The court upheld the instruction that Mr. Losch bore the burden of establishing Experian acted unreasonably, aligning with precedent that the plaintiff must demonstrate the credit reporting agency’s procedures were not reasonable.
  7. Alleged Disparagement by Experian’s Counsel: While acknowledging that Experian’s counsel should not have highlighted Mr. Losch’s trial counsel’s role in his bankruptcy, the court deemed that any error did not meet the threshold for reversible error under an abuse of discretion review.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Experian, concluding that Mr. Losch did not establish reversible error.

Scroll to Top