MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Neal Hart brings this action against Defendant Simon’s Agency, Inc. alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. (“FCRA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”). (Dkt. No. 130). Now before the Court are: 1) Defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment; and 2) Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 169, 171). The parties have also filed numerous responsive papers. (Dkt. Nos. 178-80, 185-90). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. II. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History Plaintiff commenced this action on March 18, 2019 and filed an Amended Complaint on April 25, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 6). On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff asked for Defendant’s consent to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 105-1). Instead, Defendant moved for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 103), and Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for leave to amend, (Dkt. No. 117). On March 30, 2021, the Court denied Defendant’s motion without prejudice to renew upon the completion of discovery and granted Plaintiff leave to amend.1 (Dkt. No. 129). Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 130), and discovery is now closed (see Dkt. No. 168). B. Facts2 Defendant Simon’s Agency, Inc., (“Simon’s”) collects debt for third-party clients and reports information concerning debtors to credit reporting agencies (“CRAs” and also referred to as consumer reporting agencies). (Dkt. No. 171-1, p. 1). Plaintiff maintained a personal bank account with Empower Federal Credit Union (“EFCU”). (Id.). In 2013, EFCU contacted Defendant regarding a debt of $519.13 owed by Plaintiff, and Defendant began collection efforts, which included reporting data to CRAs about the EFCU debt in the form of a tradeline. (Id., pp. 2-3). A “tradeline” refers to a record of activity for any type of credit extended to a borrower and reported to a credit reporting agency.3 Plaintiff admitted that he owed a debt to EFCU, but he testified that EFCU charged him erroneous overdraft fees that contributed to the $519.13 amount. (Dkt. No. 179-1, pp. 13-14). Plaintiff testified that he got injured at work and consequently his checking account became overdrawn. (Id.). On May 15, 2014, EFCU deducted $519.13 in payment for the debt from Plaintiff’s checking account. (Dkt. No. 169-2, 10). At this time, Defendant noted in its tradeline that Plaintiff’s debt to EFCU was paid in full. (Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 7). According to Plaintiff, he discovered that despite this payment, Defendant had communicated incorrect information about the tradeline to CRAs, including Equifax and Experian, and between 2014 and 2018, Plaintiff submitted numerous consumer disputes to Defendant and CRAs about the tradeline. (Dkt. No. 171-1, p. 3). For these disputes, Plaintiff selected options (which generated corresponding codes) including: 1) “Not aware of collection”; 2) “Claims true identity fraud, account fraudulently opened”; 3) “Not his/hers”; 4) “Not liable for account (i.e. ex-spouse, business)”; and 5) “Belongs to another individual with same/similar name.” (Dkt. No. 171-9, pp. 3-7).4 Plaintiff testified that he submitted disputes using various descriptions to get the CRAs to investigate and correct the tradeline, which remained on his credit reports. (Dkt. No. 179-1, p. 77). Defendant responded by confirming that the tradeline was accurate and that Plaintiff’s account was paid in full. (Dkt. No. 171-9, pp. 5-7). On December 17, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a dispute to Equifax regarding the tradeline that was coded as “not liable for account (e.g., ex-spouse, business”). (Dkt. No. 171-10, p. 2). On or about January 12, 2018, Defendant responded by verifying the information in its tradeline and noting that the account was paid in full. (Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 4; Dkt. No. 171-10, p. 2). On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff complained to Defendant that the tradeline was still showing the debt as outstanding on his credit report. (Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 4). On February 22, 2018, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant regarding “erroneous information reported to credit bureaus.” (Dkt. No. 180-4). Plaintiff wrote that his Experian credit report showed, as of August 2016, that he had an unpaid debt of $519 owed to Defendant. (Id.). Plaintiff continued that: “This information is wrong and is negatively impacting my credit report and score and was directly referenced in a recent credit decision.” (Id.). He requested that “the collection account be deleted.” (Id.). On or about March 1, 2018, Defendant received Plaintiff’s letter and noted that: 1) it had reported the account as paid in full since May 2014; and 2) the inaccurate information in Plaintiff’s credit report was likely due to an earlier dispute Plaintiff submitted to Experian in August 2016. (Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 4). Defendant’s position was that Plaintiff had to clear up the issue with Experian and Equifax. (Id.). On or about August 22, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a dispute to Experian that the tradeline was for an account that was “Not his/hers,” and Defendant responded on August 31, 2018 by verifying that the information was accurate as reported and that Plaintiff’s account was paid in full. (Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 4; Dkt. No. 171-11, p. 2). On September 1, 2018, Plaintiff received a report from Experian regarding his dispute of the Simon’s tradeline. (Dkt. No. 169-4, pp. 117-19; Dkt. No. 171-13). Among other things, the report indicated that Plaintiff had paid $519 owed to EFCU, and further, that the debt was first reported in August 2016. (Id.). On September 1, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter from Capital One rejecting his application for a credit card, on the basis that they had received negative information about Plaintiff’s credit from Equifax. (Dkt. No. 125-2). On September 9, 2018, Plaintiff complained to EFCU that Defendant was continuing to report inaccurate information about the tradeline. (Dkt. No. 169-2, 16). Specifically, Plaintiff stated that Defendant was “reporting that my checking account had a credit limit of $3,000 and a history of balance information that absolutely makes no sense.” (Dkt. No. 169-14, p. 2). Plaintiff also stated that Defendant was reporting the wrong date for the debt to EFCU and no monthly payments, all of which was impacting his credit score. (Id., pp. 2-3). The next day, after EFCU contacted Defendant about Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant reviewed the tradeline, noted that Plaintiff’s account was paid in full, and referred EFCU to the CRA for more information. (Dkt. No. 169-2, pp. 4-5; see also Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 3). On or about September 11, 2018, Plaintiff submitted another dispute under the option “not his/hers,” and Defendant responded by verifying that the information was accurate as reported and that Plaintiff’s account was paid in full. (Dkt. No. 171-12, p. 2). On September 13, 2018, EFCU contacted Defendant and requested that it delete the tradeline from Plaintiff’s credit report, which Defendant agreed to do. (Dkt. No. 169-2, pp. 4-5). On September 14, 2018, Defendant submitted an electronic request for the deletion of its tradeline from Plaintiff’s credit report. (Dkt. No. 103-12). Defendant sent confirmation to Plaintiff on the same day. (Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 3; Dkt. No. 171-6, p. 201). In response to Defendant’s request, Experian “suppressed” the tradeline, causing the tradeline to be hidden from Plaintiff’s credit history and appear as “deleted.” (Dkt. No. 123-5, p. 5). On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff submitted another dispute regarding the tradeline; Defendant responded by verifying that the information was accurate as reported and that Plaintiff’s account was paid in full. (Dkt. No. 171-9, p. 3). At that time, Experian had already suppressed the tradeline, and on September 24, 2018, Experian informed Plaintiff that the tradeline would not appear in his credit report and would no longer be reported to any creditors. (Dkt. No. 169-2, 22). III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment may be granted only if all the submissions, taken together, “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” and is genuinely in dispute “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must “set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 250. Further, “[w]hen no rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party because the evidence to support its case is so slight, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the grant of summary judgment is proper.” Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). When both sides move for summary judgment, courts “are required to assess each motion on its own merits and to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of that party.” Wachovia Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., 661 F.3d 164, 171 (2d Cir. 2011)). IV. DISCUSSION Based on Defendant’s handling of the tradeline dispute, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated the FCRA in three ways: 1) “failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of [his] dispute”; 2) “failing to review all relevant information provided by consumer reporting agencies”; and 3) “failing to promptly modify, delete, and/or permanently block any information it could not verify as accurate.” (Dkt. No. 130, 75). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant violated FDCPA, in that it “submitted false and erroneous information to Experian concerning a collection account appearing on Plaintiff’s credit report.” (Id.,
