This evidence is insufficient to survive summary judgment. See McMillan v. Experian, 170 F. Supp. 2d 278, 281 (D. Conn. 2001) (striking affidavit which failed to identify any basis for affiant's knowledge of why credit was denied); Howell v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 1:14-CV-148 SNLJ, 2017 WL 76892, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 9, 2017) (granting summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff failed to present a denial letter or affidavit of car dealership employee and instead relied on only his own testimony and hearsay evidence). Summary judgment is thus GRANTED in favor of HSBC as to the Affordable Auto and Synchrony Bank denials.
After Casella, district courts in this Circuit have continued to hold that "a plaintiff can establish damages when there was no credit denial, as long as they can provide [sic] that creditors became aware of the inaccurate information." Caltabiano v. BSB Bank & Trust Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 135, 141 (E.D.N.Y. 2005); see also Jones v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 268, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Courts have held that actual damages, in the form of pain and suffering, are not available unless the CRA improperly discloses the credit report."); McMillan v. Experian, 170 F. Supp. 2d 278, 286 n.10 (D. Conn. 2001) ("Casella does not itself require a denial of credit to make out a FCRA violation."). Nevertheless, Casella underscores that a credit denial or similarly adverse event will often be what enables a plaintiff to establish bona fide emotional damages.
In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiff's "bare contention that he is entitled to damages for pain and suffering simply because he knew of an inaccurate and potentially damaging item in his credit report." Id. See also Jones v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 268, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Courts have held that actual damages, in the form of pain and suffering, are not available unless the CRA improperly discloses the credit report."); Fashakin v. Nextel Commc'ns, No. 05-CV-3080 (RRM), 2009 WL 790350, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2009) (holding that in order to recover damages for pain and suffering, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that some creditors became aware of the allegedly inaccurate information"); McMillan v. Experian, 170 F. Supp. 2d 278, n. 10 (D. Conn. 2001) ("recovery under the FCRA for pain and suffering is precluded where the plaintiff cannot show that a creditor was aware of the inaccurate information, because mere knowledge by a plaintiff of potentially damaging credit information is insufficient FCRA damages."). Thus, while emotional damages can sustain a claim under the FCRA, a plaintiff must allege that a third party was aware of the inaccurate information.
In order to survive a summary judgment motion on a claim of negligent violation of the FCRA, a plaintiff must provide some evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that she suffered actual damages as a result of defendant's actions. See McMillan v. Experian, 170 F. Supp.2d 278, 284 (D. Conn. 2001). Defendant Wachovia cross-moved for summary judgment based on the fact that plaintiff has failed to come forward with evidence of actual damages caused by Wachovia's alleged negligent or willful noncompliance.