Chibike Nwabude v. Synchrony Bank / Amazon

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 CHIBIKE NWABUDE, CASE NO. C24-1574JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 SYNCHRONY BANK / AMAZON, 13 Defendant. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is Defendant Synchrony Bank’s (“Synchrony”) motion for 17 summary judgment. (MSJ (Dkt. # 30); Reply (Dkt. # 35).) Pro se Plaintiff Chibike 18 Nwabude opposes the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 33).) The court has considered the parties’ 19 submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully 20 advised,1 the court GRANTS Synchrony’s motion for summary judgment. 21

1 The parties do not request oral argument, and the court concludes that oral argument 22 will not assist it in resolving the motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 On April 20, 2024, Mr. Nwabude ordered three items from Amazon using his

3 Synchrony Amazon.com branded credit card (“Synchrony Credit Card Account”) for a 4 total of $47.15. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 14) ¶ 1.) Mr. Nwabude returned all three items to 5 Amazon on April 26, 2024. (Id.; see id., Ex. A (UPS Receipt); id., Exs. B1, B2, B3 6 (Refund Confirmation Emails); id., Ex. B4 (Return Order Details).) Mr. Nwabude 7 received the refunds as in-store credit via electronic gift cards added to his Amazon.com 8 shopping platform account (“Amazon.com Shopping Account”). (See Refund

9 Confirmation Emails (stating that the refund for all three items was “available now in 10 [Mr. Nwabude’s] Amazon Account.”).) 11 That same day, Mr. Nwabude also received by email his monthly statement for his 12 Synchrony Credit Card Account stating that the $47.15 balance was due on May 18, 13 2024. (Id. ¶ 2; see id., Exs. C, C1 (4/26/24 Monthly Statement).) On May 13, 2024, Mr.

14 Nwabude received a second email notification regarding his balance of $47.15 due on 15 May 18, 2024. (Id. ¶ 4; see id., Ex. D (5/13/24 Statement Notification Email).) On May 16 16, 2024, Mr. Nwabude called Synchrony customer service and asserted that he did not 17 owe the statement balance because he returned the items and Amazon provided a refund. 18 (Id. ¶ 3.) Synchrony’s customer service manager stated that she would look into the

19 issue. (Id. ¶ 4.) 20 On May 27, 2024, Mr. Nwabude received another email notification regarding his 21 Synchrony Credit Card Account balance, which was now $89.20 and due June 18, 2024. 22 (Id. ¶ 5; see id., Exs. E, E1 (5/27/24 Statement Notification Email and Monthly 1 Statement).) Mr. Nwabude replied to both email notifications on June 2, 2024, stating 2 that: (1) the items had been returned and refunded by Amazon; and (2) that he had

3 informed Synchrony customer service on May 16, 2024, that he did not owe the balance 4 and late fees. (See 5/13/24 Statement Notification Email; see also 5/27/24 Statement 5 Notification Email and Monthly Statement.) 6 On June 5, 2024, Mr. Nwabude spoke with an Amazon customer service 7 representative who confirmed via email that the refunds for the items were “processed on 8 [Mr. Nwabude’s] Amazon gift card balance on April 26.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 8; id., Ex. F

9 (Amazon Refund Confirmation).) 10 Between June 17, 2024, and September 26, 2024, Synchrony continued to send 11 Mr. Nwabude emails regarding his past due balance. (Id. ¶ 9; see id., Exs. G1-G26 (Past 12 Due Balance Emails).) In June and July 2024, Mr. Nwabude replied to these emails, 13 stating that he did not owe Synchrony because he returned the Amazon items and that

14 Synchrony “is messing up [his] credit records.” (Id. ¶ 9; see id., Ex. G1-G8.) Mr. 15 Nwabude did not make payments on his Synchrony Credit Card Account balance, leading 16 Synchrony to add late fees and interest in May, June, and July 2024. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14; Avila 17 Martinez Decl. (Dkt. # 32) ¶ 7, Ex. D (July 2024 Synchrony Account Statement, showing 18 a balance of $163.30).)

19 Synchrony reported the delinquencies on Mr. Nwabude’s Synchrony Credit Card 20 Account to the appropriate credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”). (Id. ¶ 17; Avila Martinez 21 Decl. ¶ 8.) Subsequently, Mr. Nwabude filed disputes with the CRAs (see Am. Compl. 22 ¶ 17; id., Exs. K (Equifax Dispute Results), K1 (Experian Dispute Results), K2 1 (TransUnion Dispute Results)), which sent Automated Credit Dispute Verifications 2 (“ACDVs”) to Synchrony (Avila Martinez Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Exs. E (Equifax ACDV),

3 F (TransUnion ACDV), G (Experian ACDV)). Synchrony reviewed its records and 4 timely verified its reporting to the CRAs in August 2024. (Avila Martinez Decl. ¶¶ 11- 5 12.) Synchrony applied provisional credits for the balance owed on Mr. Nwabude’s 6 Synchrony Credit Card Account, including late fees and interest, while it investigated his 7 claims. (Id. ¶ 13, Ex. H.) In fact, Synchrony over-credited Mr. Nwabude’s account, 8 resulting in a positive balance of $41.51. (Id.)

9 During its investigation, Synchrony requested information from Amazon 10 regarding the refunds it issued on Mr. Nwabude’s returns. (Id. ¶ 14.) Amazon informed 11 Synchrony that Mr. Nwabude had asked Amazon to credit the refunds as e-gift cards 12 posted to his Amazon.com Shopping Account. (Id.; see also id. ¶ 15, Exs. I-K (Amazon 13 Dispute Recourse Documents, noting that Mr. Nwavude had “completely used” the gift

14 card balances on other orders).) 15 Although Synchrony concluded that the three charges were valid, it reinstated only 16 one of the charges. (Id. ¶ 17.) As a result, Mr. Nwabude’s account continued to have a 17 positive balance. (Id., Ex. L (September and October 2024 Statements).) According to 18 Synchrony’s records, the adjustments it made during its investigation removed any

19 delinquencies in its credit reporting of Mr. Nwabude’s Synchrony Credit Card Account. 20 (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) As a result, the credit reporting no longer shows that the account was past 21 due in June or July 2024. (Id. ¶ 18; see Am. Compl. ¶ 27 (acknowledging that Synchrony 22 resolved the credit dispute).) Nevertheless, Mr. Nwabude alleges that the delinquencies 1 reported in June and July 2024 damaged his credit records. (Am. Compl. ¶ 27; see id., 2 Exs. Y (stating that Costco revised Mr. Nwabude’s credit limit as a result of its review of

3 Mr. Nwabude’s account and credit information), Y1 (stating that Upgrade reduced Mr. 4 Nwabude’s credit limit based on changes to his credit profile and account history), Y2 5 (stating that Wells Fargo lowered Mr. Nwabude’s credit limit based on late payments, the 6 amount owed being too high relative to his credit limit, and the amount owed being near 7 or at the credit limit on one or more actively-used cards).) 8 On July 19, 2024, Mr. Nwabude filed his original complaint in the Snohomish

9 County District Court Small Claims Department. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1-2) at 13-60.) 10 Synchrony timely removed the case to this court on October 1, 2024. (NOR (Dkt. # 1) at 11 1, 3.) On October 24, 2024, the court court granted Synchrony’s motion for a more 12 definite statement, and Mr. Nwabude filed an amended complaint pursuant to that order 13 on November 5, 2024. (10/24/24 Order (Dkt. # 13); Am. Compl.) Mr. Nwabude alleges

14 that Synchrony’s actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. 15 §§ 1681 et seq. (See generally Am. Compl.) Synchrony filed the instant motion for 16 summary judgment on January 27, 2026. (See MSJ.) Synchrony’s motion is now fully 17 briefed and ripe for decision. 18 III. ANALYSIS

19 The court first addresses the legal standard for awarding summary judgment and 20 then considers Synchrony’s motion. 21 //

22 // 1 A. Legal Standard 2 Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence viewed in the light most

3 favorable to the nonmoving party shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any 4 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, 6 under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. 7 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists 8 when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

9 nonmoving party.” Id. 10 The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the 11 court of the basis for the motion and identifying portions of the pleadings, depositions, 12 answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a 13 triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where

14 the movant seeks summary judgment on a claim or defense on which the nonmovant 15 bears the burden of persuasion at trial, “the moving party must either produce evidence 16 negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that the 17 nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its 18 ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz

19 Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). If the moving party meets its 20 initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidence supporting 21 its claims or defenses. Id. at 1103. If the nonmoving party does not produce evidence to 22 // 1 show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. 2 Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.

3 “The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant 4 and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor.” City of Pomona v. SQM 5 N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. 6 Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001)). “Where the record taken as a 7 whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 8 genuine issue for trial.” Id., 750 F.3d at 1049-50 (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

9 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). 10 B. The Court Grants Synchrony’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 11 Congress enacted the FCRA “to ensure accurate reporting about the ‘credit 12 worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of 13 consumers.’” Gross v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 33 F.4th 1246, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 2022)

14 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(2)). The FCRA regulates how entities that “furnish” 15 information about a consumer’s debt must respond to a notice of dispute sent by a CRA. 16 Id. at 1251. “Among other things, the furnisher must correct or delete inaccurate 17 information after conducting an ‘investigation with respect to the disputed information.’” 18 Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)). The investigation must be “at least ‘reasonable’

19 and ‘non-cursory.’” Id. (quoting Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 20 1157 (9th Cir. 2009)). “A consumer may sue a furnisher and recover damages if the 21 furnisher willfully or negligently violated FCRA.” Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 22 1681o). 1 To survive summary judgment, Mr. Nwabude must make a prima facie showing 2 that Synchrony furnished inaccurate information to a CRA and failed to reasonably

3 investigate the inaccuracy after receiving notice from the CRA about his dispute. See 4 Gross, 33 F.4th at 1251. “If there is no inaccuracy, then the reasonableness of the 5 investigation is not in play.” Id. If Mr. Nwabude makes this showing, he must also 6 demonstrate that there is a triable issue of damages, whether through actual harm or in the 7 form of statutory damages, which are available for willful violations. Id. at 1253. 8 Synchrony contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Nwabude’s

9 FCRA claim because: (1) its reporting of Mr. Nwabude’s credit information was 10 accurate; (2) it conducted a reasonable investigation upon receiving the ACDVs 11 regarding Mr. Nwabude’s credit dispute; and (3) Mr. Nwabude cannot prove actual 12 damages or willfulness as a result of Synchrony’s alleged negligent violation of the 13 FCRA. (MSJ at 8-17.) The court agrees with Synchrony that Mr. Nwabude cannot show

14 that the information it reported to the CRAs was inaccurate. 15 “[A]n item on a credit report can be incomplete or inaccurate . . . because it is 16 patently incorrect, or because it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it 17 can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., 18 LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

19 It is undisputed that Mr. Nwabude purchased three items from Amazon.com using his 20 Synchrony Credit Card Account for a total of $47.15, and that he returned the items on 21 April 26, 2024. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1; MSJ at 2.) Mr. Nwabude’s own evidence 22 demonstrates that Amazon refunded the items in the form of e-gift cards added to his 1 Amazon.com Shopping Account, rather than to his Synchrony Credit Card Account. (See 2 Refund Confirmation Emails; Amazon Refund Confirmation; see also Amazon Dispute

3 Recourse Documents.) Mr. Nwabude does not address this evidence in his opposition 4 brief. (See generally Resp. (making no mention of his choice to receive the refunds to his 5 Amazon.com Shopping Account and subsequently spend them on other purchases).) 6 Because Mr. Nwabude chose to receive the refunds for the three items through e-gift 7 cards rather than as a credit to his Synchrony Credit Card Account, he still owed 8 Synchrony for the original purchases. (See MSJ at 8-11 (so arguing).) Mr. Nwabude,

9 however, refused to pay the outstanding balance to Synchrony. (Id.) As a result, 10 Synchrony applied late fees and interest to his balance in May, June, and July 2024, and 11 furnished this information to the CRAs. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14; July 2024 Synchrony 12 Account Statement; see also Avila Martinez Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) 13 Accordingly, the court concludes that Synchrony has shown as a matter of law that

14 the information it provided to the CRAs was accurate. As a result, the court need not 15 address the reasonableness of Synchrony’s investigation. See Gross, 33 F.4th at 1251. 16 Thus, the court grants Synchrony’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses Mr. 17 Nwabude’s FCRA claim with prejudice. 18 //

19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Synchrony’s motion for summary

3 judgment as to Mr. Nwabude’s FCRA claim (Dkt. # 30). This claim, and this action, are 4 DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 Dated this 1 3th day of March, 2026. 6 A 7 JAMES L. ROBART 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22