OPINION & ORDER Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment of Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“Chase”). (Doc. 77.) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts The following facts are based on the parties’ Local Civil Rule 56.1 statements, responses, and supporting materials, and are undisputed except as noted.1 In 2008, Plaintiff Reina Lichtman opened a Chase credit card account. (Doc. 80 (“D’s 56.1 Stmt.”) 1.) The cardmember agreement stated, among other things, that Chase “‘may report information about you and your Account to credit reporting agencies.’” (Id. 2 (quoting Doc. 79 (“Rivera Decl.”) Ex. 1 at 3).) Each of Plaintiff’s monthly account statements similarly stated, “‘We may report information about your account to credit bureaus. Late payments, missed payments or other defaults on your account may be reflected in your credit report.’” (Id. (quoting Rivera Decl. Ex. 2 at CHASE-000008).) In April 2010, Plaintiff enrolled in Chase’s Balance Liquidation Program (“BLP”), which provided her the opportunity to eliminate her account balance through monthly payments of $126 for sixty months at 6 percent annual interest. (Id. 5.) The letter memorializing the BLP’s terms provided that Plaintiff would be removed from the program if she missed two consecutive payments or five payments total. (Id.) Plaintiff went on to miss seven monthly payments and was removed from the program in September 2012 after her second consecutive missed payment. (Id. 6.)2 At this point, Chase was reporting her account to credit reporting agencies Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) and Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) as thirty days past due. (Id. 8.) In October 2012, Plaintiff enrolled in a second BLP with Chase in which she could eliminate her balance through monthly payments of $113 for thirty-one months at 0 percent annual interest. (Id. 9.) This new BLP included a provisional credit of $921.35 that would become permanent only when Plaintiff completed the program. (See Rivera Decl. Ex. 9 at CHASE- 000273.) If Plaintiff missed two consecutive payments or five payments total, she would be removed from the program, her provisional credit would be reapplied to her account, and interest would be charged in accordance with the terms of her cardmember agreement. (Id.) Plaintiff made her first three payments by their due dates in October, November, and December 2012. (D’s 56.1 Stmt. 11.) Nevertheless, Chase continued to report her account as past due because she never made up for her prior payment shortfalls. (See Doc. 78-2 (“Trans Union Report”); Doc. 78-3 (“Equifax Report”); Doc. 81 (“D’s Mem.”) at 3 n.2). Chase was reporting her account as sixty days past due by December 2012 and ninety days past due by January 2013. (Trans Union Report; Equifax Report.) Plaintiff missed payments in January, February, April, and July of 2013. (D’s 56.1 Stmt.
11-12.) As a result, Chase continued to report her account as ninety days past due throughout 2013 and into 2014 (except for April and July 2013, when her account was reported as sixty days past due). (Id.; Trans Union Report; Equifax Report.) In August 2014, however, she made up for those four missed payments. (D’s 56.1 Stmt. 12.) Thereafter, Chase began reporting her account as paid on time. (See Trans Union Report; Equifax Report.) Plaintiff missed another payment in January 2015 but finally completed her BLP payment obligations in May 2015. (D’s 56.1 Stmt. 13.) On or about June 27, 2018, Plaintiff notified Trans Union and Equifax that her credit report contained incorrect late-payment notations for her Chase account in the years 2012-2015. (Id. 3.) Plaintiff also complained to Chase directly in a letter postmarked July 9, which Chase received on July 12. (Rivera Decl. Ex. 11.) On July 16, Chase marked Plaintiff’s account as disputed with the credit bureaus and began an investigation. (See Rivera Decl. 16; id. Ex. 12 at CHASE-000321-22; id. Ex. 13.)3 Chase determined that the information it had provided to the credit bureaus was accurate and notified Plaintiff of the results of its investigation in a letter dated July 18. (See Rivera Decl. Ex. 12 at CHASE-000319-22; id. Ex. 13; id. Ex. 14.) That same day, Chase removed the “disputed” notations it had placed with the credit bureaus regarding Plaintiff’s account. (See Rivera Decl. 16; id. Ex. 12 at CHASE-000320; id. Ex. 13 at CHASE-000378.) B. Procedural History Plaintiff brought this action against Chase, Trans Union, and Equifax, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). (See Doc. 1 (“Complaint”)
