Longman v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105450 (D. Conn. Sep. 16, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff sued Wachovia alleging violations of the FCRA and state law defamation related to Wachovia’s reporting of Plaintiff’s lot loan note. Pl  aintiff, a lot developer, financed a land purchase with a three-year balloon lot note with Wachovia. At the end of the three-year term Plaintiff informed Wachovia that he was unable to continue making monthly interest payments or the balloon payment and offered to continue to make payments if Wachovia would reduce the interest rate and lengthen the amortization period. Wachovia rejected Plaintiff’s offer. Plaintiff then attempted...
Read More >>>
E.T. Limited, Inc. v. United States Liability Insurance Company and Essex Insurance Company, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19990 (11th Cir. Fla. Sep. 30, 2011)  Facts: Plaintiff-Appellant E.T. Limited, Inc., ("ETL") appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Essex Insurance Company ("Essex") pertaining to an alleged violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Card Transaction Act ("FACTA") which occurred in a restaurant when a credit card receipt revealed more than five digits of a customer’s credit card number. The district court concluded that Defendant Essex’s commercial general liability policy (the "Policy")...
Read More >>>
Menashi v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114387 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2011) .jpg) Facts: Plaintiff filed suit against the three CRAs, Wilmington Trust Company and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”), the servicer of Plaintiff’s mortgage, alleging violations of § 559.72(5), (6), and (9) of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”). Plaintiff’s claim arose from the modification of his home mortgage under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). Plaintiff and AHMSI negotiated a mortgage modification under HAMP and after a three-month HAMP “trial period plan,” AHMSI offered Plaintiff...
Read More >>>
Ferkler v. RCN Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 104209 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2011)  Facts: Plaintiff alleged he was erroneously billed by his cable service provider, RCN Corporations, Inc. (“RCN”). Plaintiff and RCN allegedly resolved the issue and Plaintiff made a payment for full and final payment on the account. Plaintiff asserted that despite RCN’s knowledge that the account was paid in full, it forwarded the account to two different collection agencies who thereafter supplied the CRAs with false or erroneous information. Plaintiff filed suit against RCN and NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (“NCO”), one of the collection agencies. NCO removed the case to federal...
Read More >>>
Okocha v. Trans Union LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39998 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011) .jpg) Facts: Plaintiff alleged that Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax violated the FCRA, the New York FCRA, and New York common law by inaccurately reporting five accounts on his consumer report and by failing to conduct an adequate reinvestigation of those accounts. The Court granted Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to support his claims. · Reasonable Procedures. Under § 1681e(b), CRAs have a duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of consumer...
Read More >>>
Bradshaw v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110781 (D. Or. Sept. 27, 2011) Facts: In March 2008, Plaintiffs applied for a home loan modification. Plaintiffs filed suit after encountering problems with the home loan modification process and derogatory information was reported on their credit file. Specifically, there was a dispute about whether Plaintiffs made timely payments pursuant to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP’s (“BAC”) instructions while the loan modification was pending. Plaintiffs alleged that they always paid in accordance with BAC’s directions yet BAC reported Plaintiffs as delinquent to the consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”). After Plaintiff settled with BAC and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants...
Read More >>>
Picon v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65951 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff filed suit against Bank of America, FIA Card Services, Trans Union, Equifax, and Experian for violation of the FCRA seeking statutory and economic damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and declaratory relief. In response, Trans Union filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal. Injunctive Relief. Trans Union filed a motion for partial dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing that as a private person, Plaintiff could not seek equitable, declaratory or injunctive relief under the FCRA. The Court found that by excluding equitable relief from the list of remedies available to private individuals, Congress intended to vest injunctive relief solely with the Federal Trade Commission. Thus,...
Read More >>>
Paul v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68292 (D. Minn. June 22, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff opened numerous accounts with U.S. Bancorp in January 2007. In early 2008, Plaintiff decided she had too many debit and credit cards and went to a bank branch location to pay the outstanding balances and close many of the accounts. The bank representative informed Plaintiff she was current on her accounts and that they were closed. However, the bank representative missed one credit account that still had a balance. In April 2008, Plaintiff noticed the account had derogatory reporting history after reviewing an Experian consumer report. She contacted the bank and was given a letter from the bank stating the derogatory reporting was the result of bank error, and it...
Read More >>>
Adams v. ACSO of Tex., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63406 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2011) Facts: Plaintiffs sued Defendant, ACSO of Texas, Inc. (“ACSO”), alleging violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”). ACSO moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation based on the arbitration provision in the credit services contracts executed by Plaintiffs. Alternatively, ACSO moved to stay the case pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Compucredit v. Greenwood or for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. While the Court agreed that the case should be sent to arbitration, it stayed all proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. Arbitration. The Court determined...
Read More >>>
Nagim v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49425 (D. Colo. May 9, 2011) & Nagim v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49424 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on or about October 15, 2005. Other than a tax lien, Plaintiff’s debts were discharged as part of the bankruptcy on May 16, 2006. The tax lien was paid and released on August 13, 2008. Plaintiff claimed in a lawsuit filed on February 1, 2010, that Defendant CRAs reported “inaccurate entries on his credit report” and “depressed” his credit scores. Plaintiff argued that Defendants acted unlawfully under the FCRA by maintaining information in Plaintiff’s credit file that related...
Read More >>>
Healey v. Trans Union, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53522 (W.D. Wash., May 18, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff’s suit arises out of the efforts of Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC’s (“DRS”) to collect a debt that it purchased from Embarq, based on a delinquent Sprint cellular telephone account that had been opened under Plaintiff’s name. Plaintiff claimed that the delinquent account was not hers. DRS began collection efforts in February 2007, and engaged in numerous back-and-forth communications with Plaintiff over the ensuing year and a half. DRS would send Plaintiff a collection letter, to which she would reply by stating that it was not her debt and also include a request to verify the debt. In response, DRS would send Plaintiff the underlying Sprint documents. Plaintiff would...
Read More >>>
Smith v. Waverly Partners, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46399 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff, the Senior VP, GC and Secretary of the Cato Corporation, had begun the process of pursuing the GC position with another company, Waverly Partners, LLC. As part of that process, Plaintiff provided her resume and a list of references to Waverly and participated in several interviews. She also had signed an FCRA consent form, which permitted verification of her former employment, but did not permit Waverly to contact her current employer. Waverly’s representative told Plaintiff that no references would be contacted unless she was the final candidate, and even then only the listed references would be contacted. Waverly hired AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC (“AlliedBarton”) to conduct...
Read More >>>
Beachley v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94236 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff sued PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC”) alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, violation of the Maryland Fair Credit Reporting Act, that PNC failed in its duty to prevent foreseeable injury, and violation of § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA. Beachley claimed that PNC reported inaccurate information about her credit history to CRAs, which in turn caused her to be denied credit and charged higher interest rate for credit that was granted. Her claims stemmed from an installment loan she took out with her husband. After they took out the loan, they separated and Beachley filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and her responsibility for the installment loan was discharged. The original loan was with Farmers & Mechanics...
Read More >>>
Comrey v. Discover Fin. Servs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41239 (M.D. Pa., Apr. 15, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff brought suit in state court against Discover alleging unspecified violations of the FCRA. Discover removed the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania and filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings. Plaintiff had opened a Discover credit card in 1991. Upon the approval of her application, a credit card and card member agreement (“agreement”) were mailed to her residence. Plaintiff agreed to the terms of the agreement when she first utilized the card. Pursuant to the agreement’s “change of terms” provision, Discover modified the agreement numerous times between 1991 and 2006. Discover sent Plaintiff amendments in 2003 and 2006 which included...
Read More >>>
Shawn Smith v. Waverly Partners, LLC et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90135(W.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff was contacted by Harrison Turnbull ("Turnbull"), a principal of Defendant Waverly Partners, LLC ("Waverly") to discuss her interest in a general counsel position with a company outside of North Carolina. Over the next two weeks, Plaintiff faxed her resume and a list of references to Waverly, had several in-depth telephone conversations about the position, and had an in-person interview with Turnbull. Soon thereafter, Turnbull sent various forms to Plaintiff, including a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") consent form. Plaintiff signed and returned the form, which permitted verification of Plaintiff’s former employment. Significantly, the consent form...
Read More >>>
Brown v. Mortensen, 51 Cal. 4th 1052 (Cal. 2011) Facts: Plaintiffs sued Mortensen, a debt collector, alleging violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, related to the debt collector’s disclosure of Plaintiffs’ and their children’s medical information to the CRAs. Mortensen argued that those claims were preempted because the operative complaint stated that Plaintiffs complained to the CRAs that the disclosures were inaccurate and, alternatively, because the Plaintiffs’ claims rest on the idea that Defendant misled the CRAs by incorrectly implying either that Plaintiffs’ children owed a debt or that their medical records were in some way relevant to Plaintiffs’ disputed debt. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ allegations brought the claim within...
Read More >>>
Birmingham v. Experian, 633 F. 3d 1006 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff brought FCRA and Utah state law claims against Experian and Verizon Wireless related to a purported identity theft. Plaintiff claimed that two Verizon accounts were fraudulently opened in his name and that fraudulent charges had appeared on his legitimate Verizon account. He was unable to resolve the issue with Verizon, who closed the accounts and reported the adverse charges to the CRAs. Plaintiff claimed that he made two disputes to Experian, however, neither Plaintiff nor Experian had proof of the first dispute being made. Experian did receive the second dispute, and pursuant to its procedures, requested Plaintiff to verify his identity. Experian had no record of a reply, and Plaintiff could not present proof that...
Read More >>>
Aliano v. Joe Caputo & Sons – Algonquin, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48323 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2011) Facts: On February 12, 2008, Plaintiff purchased groceries at Defendant’s market by using her Discover credit card. Defendant provided her a receipt that showed every digit of her credit card in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). As a result, Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against Defendant alleging willful violations of FACTA and seeking statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per FACTA violation plus attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 21, 2010, the Court certified the putative class. Defendant alleged that it did not know its software failed to comply with FACTA’s truncation requirements until it received the lawsuit. The...
Read More >>>
Chakejian v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, 2011 Dist. LEXIS 63455 (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff brought a §1681i claim related to Equifax’s standard reinvestigation procedures letter related to a reinvestigation of public record information appearing on his Equifax credit file. Equifax employed an independent records vendor to go to the original source of information, review the information, and report the results to Equifax. Equifax then responded directly back to Plaintiff that “it contacted each source directly,” and indicated it reviewed Plaintiff’s “bankruptcy information” and “verified” that the bankruptcy item belonged to him. Plaintiff claimed that Equifax’s reinvestigation letter misrepresented the source of Equifax’s...
Read More >>>
Eric C. Johnson v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18361(D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff claimed that Defendant employment agency Robert Half International, Inc. (“RHI”) violated the FCRA following the running of a background check on him as a prospective employment candidate. The background report stated that Plaintiff had numerous criminal convictions in Minnesota, Texas and Virginia. RHI sent Plaintiff a letter stating that it had placed his employment application on hold as a result of the report and included a copy of it and a summary of rights under the FCRA. The notification letter further stated that Plaintiff could dispute the information, and that Plaintiff had ten business days in which to submit a revised report to RHI if the...
Read More >>>
Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc., 634 F.3d 1202, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10374 (9th Cir. 2011) Facts: Defendant Expedia, Inc. emailed Plaintiff a receipt, which included the expiration date of Plaintiff’s credit card. Plaintiff alleged that the receipt he received via email violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), an amendment to the FCRA. The lower court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The 9th Circuit confirmed the dismissal on appeal. · FACTA. Pursuant to § 1681c(g)(1) of FACTA, “no person that accepts credit cards … for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration...
Read More >>>
Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54102 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2011) Facts: On January 27, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of standing and gave Plaintiff twenty days to amend to meet the standing requirements. On February 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and alleged that Defendant operated its website, Spokeo.com, in violation of the FCRA. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that reports generated by Defendant contained inaccurate consumer information that was marketed to entities performing background checks. As a result of Defendant’s FCRA violations, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant caused him actual and/or imminent harm by creating, displaying, and marketing inaccurate consumer reporting information about Plaintiff. In response to Plaintiff’s...
Read More >>>
K.H. Jane Doe v. Nicole Saftig, City of New Berlin, et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50713 (E.D. Wis. May 11, 2011) Facts: Plaintiff claimed that Defendant police officer Nicole Saftig (“Saftig”) violated her rights under the FCRA, as well as under other federal and state law statutes, when she disclosed the Plaintiff’s credit information without a permissible purpose during Plaintiff’s employment screening process for a position with the local police department. During the screening process, Saftig approached various police department personnel and discussed Plaintiff’s credit information including information that Saftig had completed the background investigation, that the Plaintiff told her that during the background check, they would find out she had a loan or was in debt because...
Read More >>>
|
|
 |
