Randall FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant-Appellee, 538 F. App'x 782

MEMORANDUM Randall Ferguson appeals the district court’s grant of Wells Fargo’s motion for

summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse and remand. Ferguson brought suit against Wells Fargo under a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), for failing to accurately report to TransUnion that there was no bankruptcy on his account.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), a fur-nisher of credit information must investigate and report “[ajfter receiving notice ... of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency.” Here, Wells Fargo furnished information about Wells Fargo accounts to TransUnion, the credit reporting agency, either originally, in response to TransUnion’s inquiry, or both. Ferguson disputed to TransUnion the completeness and accuracy of the information about his Wells Fargo account.

Because Ferguson in fact disputed that account, Wells Fargo was obligated to reasonably investigate and accurately report its findings back to TransUnion. The district court erred by granting

summary judgment because there are genuine disputes of fact as to whether Wells Fargo accurately reported the account. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.2009) (summary judgment is only appropriate where there are “no genuine disputes of material fact”) (internal quotation omitted). In particular, there is a dispute as to whether it was correct for Wells Fargo to leave the Consumer Information Index space blank instead of entering the Q code on the form it sent to TransUnion. The district court did not reach Wells Fargo’s partial motion for

summary judgment on the issue of willfulness and we leave that motion for the district court to rule on in the first instance. We REVERSE the district court’s grant of Wells Fargo’s motion for

summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.