Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Derderian v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc., 2014 WL 6980525 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Lorenz granted summary judgment to a lender on a FCRA claim that alleged that the lender had accessed the Plaintiff's credit report for an impermissible purpose without making a Firm Offer of Credit.  The facts were as follows: On September 15, 2012 and March 15, 2013, Southwestern… Read More

In McIvor v. Credit Control Services, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 6805380 (8th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a debt collector’s reinvestigation of a credit dispute and communications with the CRAs was not a “communication” in connection with the collection of a debt under FCRA because, instead, it was the debt collector’s… Read More

In Davidson v. Capital One, N.A., 2014 WL 6682532 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Altonago found that a FCRA Plaintiff must prove inaccuracy in the credit reporting, even if a furnisher did not conduct an adequate re-investigation. Capital One argues an FCRA plaintiff must establish the underlying information reported to the CRA is incorrect. (See Capital One Mot. 10). The Davidson Response… Read More

In Desselle v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC,  2014 WL 4635545 (E.D.La. 2014), Judge Fallon dismissed a FCRA claim against an automobile finance company. Here, Desselle does not allege that the three credit reporting agencies notified Ford Credit of the dispute. He merely asserts that he himself notified the three credit reporting agencies and Ford Credit, and that Ford Credit failed to… Read More

In Calhoun v. Certegy Check Services, Inc., 2014 WL 4146886 (M.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Whittemore found that a Plaintiff stated a FCRA claim against a check services company for failing to report an account as ‘disputed’ during its reinvestigation. Plaintiff brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt… Read More

In a Bulletin and Report, the CFPB warned furnishers of consumer data information to consumer reporting agencies that they must comply with FCRA's re-investigation requirements.  And, in a shot across the bow, the CFPB stated that merely deleting a trade-line does not by itself comply with FCRA's reinvestigation requirements.  The CFPB warned: A furnisher should not assume that it ceases to… Read More

In Seamans v. Temple University, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 658401 (3d Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed, in matters of first impression, the interplay between the Higher Education Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the responsibilities of an institution of higher education that furnishes information on student loan indebtedness to… Read More

In Landini v. FIA Card Services, National Association, 2014 WL 587520 (N.D.Cal. 2014), Magistrate Judge Lloyd granted summary judgment on two matters filed by the Sagaria law group alleging that a debt collector’s affirmation of pre-bankruptcy historical reporting after bankruptcy was filed did not result in FCRA liability.  The facts were as follows: Landini opened a credit card account with… Read More

In Crehin v. ARS Nat. Services, 2014 WL 104073 (C.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Wilson found that a collection agency had a permissible to pull an alleged debtor’s credit report, notwithstanding the debtor’s dispute as to whether or not he was not a debtor. However, one of the permissible purposes for obtaining an individual's credit report is if the entity requesting the… Read More

In Hill v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 2013 WL 6241043 (M.D.N.C. 2013), Judge Eagles found that FCRA provides no cause of action against a furnisher for failing to report a debtor’s positive trade-line to a consumer reporting agency.  The facts were as follows: Mr. Hill has alleged several causes of action against Dell, all of which stem from the absence… Read More

In Callahan v. Equifax Information Services LLC, 2013 WL 5503949 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Alsup found that Plaintiff could state a FCRA claim in an SSN-swap situation.  The proposed pleading alleged that Plaintiff’s credit reports indicated that a SunTrust mortgage account was associated with her. Plaintiff disputed the mortgage account and the CRAs notified SunTrust. Although plaintiff's SSN did not match… Read More

In Hillis v. Trans Union, LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 5272922 (E.D.Pa. 2013), Judge Davis allowed a FCRA claim to get past the pleading stage.  The dispute arose out of an automobile loan that Plaintiff and his ex-wife entered into during their marriage.In 2007, Plaintiff's marriage ended in divorce, and the Texas court's divorce decree awarded the underlying vehicle… Read More

Today, the CFPB issued a bulletin stating its intention to monitor complaints lodged against furnishers of credit information to consumer reporting agencies.  (here)  The CFPB explained how it expects furnishers to comply with FCRA: In general, with respect to disputes received by furnishers from CRAs, the CFPB expects each furnisher to comply with the FCRA by: (1) Maintaining a system… Read More

In Iyigun v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, 2013 WL 950947 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Fitzgerald found that Plaintiff stated no FCRA claim because her claim that she did not owe the money did not demonstrate an inaccuracy in her report. First, Iyigun's claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”)… Read More

In Vartanian v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2013 WL 877863 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Otis Wright III addressed a litany of FCRA and FDCPA claims brought by the Kaas Law Group.  Judge Wright held that a FCRA Plaintiff need not plead that its dispute to the CRA was not frivilous; i.e. non-frivilousness is not an element of a FCRA claim. Contrary… Read More

In McDonald v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 858197 (W.D.Wash. 2013), Judge Lasnik found a triable issue of fact as to a furnisher’s reinvestigation under FCRA, finding that the furnisher can not rely solely on the information provided to it by the CRA when the furnisher has other information available to it to investigate. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing… Read More

In Thomas v. Nelson Watson & Associates, LLC, 2013 WL 781964 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Marshall found that debt collection was a permissible purpose to pull a credit report under FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b limits the circumstances under which a credit reporting agency may furnish credit reports to an enumerated set of “permissible purposes.” If those purposes are exceeded, then… Read More

In Modica v. American Suzuki Financial Services Co., 2013 WL 656495 (D.Ariz. 2013), Judge Campbell appeared to hold that a consumer need not prove inaccuracy in order to state a FCRA re-investigation claim, as the accuracy question goes only to the question of damages. On December 8, 2005, Plaintiff and her daughter Jacklyn Modica executed an agreement for a lease… Read More

In Simonyan v. Ally Financial Inc., 2013 WL 45453 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Walter required a Plaintiff -- one of a number of Plaintiffs who've sued multiple creditors in the Central District on bald factual FCRA allegations -- must plead more. In Iqbal, the Supreme Court held that “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements… Read More

In Mortimer v. Bank of America, N.A.  2012 WL 6218004 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Spero addressed the interplay between bankrupt debt and credit reporting, finding that Plaintiff stated no FCRA or CCRAA claim.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Mark Mortimer (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Bank of America, N.A., (“Defendant”) FN1 seeking redress for Defendant's alleged inaccurate reporting of his… Read More

1 5 6 7 8 9