Marty Green v. RBS Nat'l Bank, 288 F. App'x 641 (11th Cir. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
Marty Green v. RBS Nat'l Bank, 288 F. App'x 641 (11th Cir. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“here is no private right of action under 15 u.s.c. 1681s-2(a)(l)(a) and (b).”
38 citation events (38 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Quale v. Unifund CCR Partners (alsd, 2010-01-27)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#3 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1) cited 1× in this case · 235 total citations of statute #13 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c) cited 1× in this case · 95 total citations of statute #1 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(c)(1)(B) cited 1× in this case · 2 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Quale v. Unifund CCR Partners
S.D. Ala. · 2010 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
here is no private right of action under 15 u.s.c. 1681s-2(a)(l)(a) and (b).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arlean Brown Young v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Ala. · 2025 · confidence medium
Second, § 1681s-2(b) requires furnishers to investigate and respond promptly to notices of [consumer] disputes.” Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Self v. Bomnin Motors
S.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
Second, § 1681s-2(b) requires furnishers to investigate and respond promptly to notices of customer disputes.” 288 F. App’x 641, 643 (11th Cir. 2008); see Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 827 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2016).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Lanier Collection Agency & Services
S.D. Ga. · 2024 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ditech Holding Corporation
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · confidence medium
Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Powell v. Capital One Bank (MAG+) (2×)
M.D. Ala. · 2023 · confidence medium
See id. § 1681s-2(c)(1); Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The FCRA, however, does not provide a private right of action to redress [ ] 2 In the complaint, Powell cites to § 623 a7 of the FCRA, which is the citation to the public law.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stephenson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App'x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s- 2(b)(1)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Binch v. PNC Bank, N.A.
M.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
Bank, 288 F. App'x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)); see Schlueter v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1207-08 (N.D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ramones v. Experian Information Solutions, LLC
S.D. Fla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Bank, 288 Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sandiford v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · confidence medium
Bank, 288 F. App'x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Uppal v. Wells Fargo Financial
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · confidence medium
Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008); Maitland v. Spectrum, No. 3:17-CV-1232-J-20JBT, 2018 WL 6444923 , at *1 (M.D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Bank of America NA
N.D. Ala. · 2019 · confidence medium
Second, § 1681s-2(b) requires furnishers to investigate and respond promptly to notices of [consumer] disputes.” Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Adams v. Bank of America, N.A.
unknown court · 2017 · confidence medium
Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008); Peart, 345 Fed.Appx. at 386 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Librizzi v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
S.D. Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s FCRA claim focuses on the allegation that Ocwen furnished ‘negative and derogatory information about Plaintiffs payment, history to [credit reporting agencies],’ an allegation which it argues “falls: squarely within the purview of .15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) which does not create a private right of action.” ECF No. [82] at 15 (citing Green v. BBS Nat’l Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.2008)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arianas v. LVNV Funding LLC.
M.D. Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
The FCRA includes a private right of action against furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies, as LVNV is alleged to be, which fail to promptly investigate and respond to notices of disputes from consumer reporting agencies. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s—2(b); Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arianas v. LVNV Funding LLC
M.D. Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
The Eleventh Circuit explained in Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.2008), “[Section] 1681s-2(a) requires furnishers to submit accurate information to [credit reporting agencies].” However, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(c), (d) prohibits a private right of action for a citizen to redress a violation of § 1681s-2(a).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schlueter v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS
N.D. Ala. · 2010 · confidence medium
Green v. RBS National Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 929 , 173 L.Ed.2d 133 (2009)(emphasis added)[unpublished]; see also Chipka v. Bank of America, 355 Fed.Appx. 380, 383 (11th Cir.2009)(“Congress, however, expressly reserved enforcement of subsection (a) to governmental agencies and officials, thereby limiting a consumer’s private cause of action against a furnisher of credit information to violations of § 1681s-2(b).”)[unpublished]; Peart v. Shippie, 345 Fed.Appx. 384, 386 (11th Cir.2009)(“[T]he FCRA prohibits furnishers of credit info…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Llewellyn v. Shearson Financial Network, Inc.
D. Colo. · 2009 · confidence medium
Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.2008) (unpublished).
discussed Cited "see" Leonard v. Wells Fargo Bank (2×)
N.D. Ala. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(c) & (f), 1681s-2(a)).
discussed Cited "see" Griffin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
M.D. Ala. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008). “[F]irst, § 1681s- 2(a) requires furnishers to submit accurate information to credit reporting agencies; and second, § 1681s-2(b) requires furnishers to investigate and respond promptly to notices of customer disputes.” Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:15–cv–54–MHT–WC, 2016 WL 937949 , at *2 (M.D.
cited Cited "see" Muhammad v. O'Brien
N.D. Ga. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008).
cited Cited "see" Uppal v. Wells Fargo Financial
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing § 1681s–2(b)(1)).
cited Cited "see" Baker v. Pinnacle Credit Union
N.D. Ga. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008).
cited Cited "see" Arianas v. LVNV Funding LLC.
M.D. Fla. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Green v. RBS Nat Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.2008); 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(l).
cited Cited "see" Ware v. Bank of America Corp.
N.D. Ga. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Green, 288 Fed.Appx. at 642 n. 2 (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2(c), (d); 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(e)(l)(B)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Fowler v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 F. App’x 641, 642 (11th Cir. 2008); Maitland v. Spectrum, No. 3:17-cv-1232-J-20JBT, 2018 WL 6444923 , at *1 (M.D.
cited Cited "see, e.g." O'Loughlin v. Equifax, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e g., Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642-43 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stroman v. Bank of America Corp.
N.D. Ga. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Nothing in the statute limits this obligation on the part of a furnisher to circumstances where the CRA has notified it that the dispute is “viable.” Id.; see also Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.2008) (finding the FCRA provides a private right of action against a furnisher for violation of § 1681s-2(b) if the furnisher received notice of the dispute from the CRA); Pinson v. Equifax Credit Info.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Carruthers v. American Honda Finance Corp.
N.D. Fla. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Chiang, 595 F.3d at 35 -36 & n. 8; Peart, 345 Fed.Appx. at 386 ; see also Green v. RBS Nat’l Bank, 288 Fed.Appx. 641, 642 (11th Cir.2008) (“The [FCRA] does provide a private right of action for a violation of § 1681s-2(b), but only if the furnisher received notice of the consumer’s dispute from a consumer reporting agency.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marty GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RBS NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellee
08-10889.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 4, 2008.
288 F. App'x 641
Marty Green, Flintstone, GA, pro Se., Jared Matthew Lina, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Hemy R. Chalmers, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Tjoflat, Carnes, Barkett.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Unpublished
PER CURIAM:

Marty Green, proceeding pro se, brought this action against RBS National Bank ("RBS") claiming that RBS violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Green asserts that RBS infringed his rights under the FCRA because it (1) was negligent in its investigation of disputes sent to it by credit reporting agencies ("CRA"), (2) erroneously reported two accounts, instead of one, and failed to rectify the problem after receiving a dispute from a CRA, and (3) furnished inaccurate information to GRAs. After the parties joined issue, RBS moved the district court for summary judgment. The court granted its motion in a comprehensive 40-page order on January 23, 2008. Green now appeals. [1]

The FCRA governs claims by consumers, like Green, against a furnisher of information, such as RBS, based on an allegation that the furnisher submitted incorrect information regarding the consumer to GRAs. See generally 15 U.s.c. §~ 1681a(c) & (f), 1681s-2(a). The FCRA imposes two separate duties on furnishers. First, § 1681s-2(a) requires furnishers to submit accurate information to GRAs. Second, § 1681s-2(b) requires furnishers to investigate and respond promptly to notices of customer disputes. Green contends that citizens Bank of Rhode Island ("citizens") violated § 1681s-2(a) by tendering false information regarding his account. The FCRA, however, does not provide a private right of action to redress such a violation, and the district court was correct in so holding. [2]

The FCRA does provide a private right of action for a violation of § 1681s-2(b), but only if the furnisher received notice of the consumer's dispute from a consumer reporting agency. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). Assuming that Green asserted such a claim, the undisputed evi[*643] dence is against him. Green initiated oniy three disputes with CRAs, one with Expe-nan and two with Trans Union. Citizens investigated the Experian dispute and accurately reported its findings to Experian the next day. Citizens investigated the Trans Union disputes and accurately reported its findings to Trans Union within no more than eight days. In short, Citizens timely complied with the letter of the law in all three instances.

We have no basis for disturbing the district court's January 23, 2008 order, and therefore affirm the court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

1

. In addition to arguing that the court erred in granting RBS summary judgment, Green contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for an extension of time for discovery. We find no error, much less an abuse of discretion, in the court's denial of the motion. As the court properly explained in its January 16, 2008 order denying the motion, the motion was untimely.

2

. Enforcement of this provision is limited to federal agencies, federal officials, and state officials. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2(c), (d); 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(c)(1)(B).