Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Permissible Purpose

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 Persinger v. Sw. Credit Sys., L.P., No. 21-1037, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37986, at *16-17 (7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FCRA "Permissible Purpose" case arising out of a post-discharge credit pull.  The facts were as follows: Persinger and her husband jointly filed for bankruptcy in 2017. Their… Read More

In Brogan v. Fred Beans Chevrolet, No. 20-1944, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11183, at *1-2 (3d Cir. Apr. 19, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no TILA or FCRA violation by a car dealer in attempting to get a customer's car financed.  The facts were as follows: In 2017, Brogan bought a used Subaru from Fred… Read More

In Trim v. CMRE Fin. Servs., No. 20-cv-451-AJB-LL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48060, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021), Judge Battaglia denied a motion to dismiss an FCRA permissible purpose class action. Around May 4, 2018, Plaintiff incurred a financial obligation ("Debt") to a third party, Rady Children's Hospital San Diego ("Rady"). (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) On September… Read More

In Sullivan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 19-0234-WS-M, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196114 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 12, 2019), Judge Steele allowed a “permissible purpose’ FCRA case past the pleadings stage despite the commercial nature of the transaction. Entangled with the defendant's [*16]  argument that it did not pull a "consumer report" is the argument that "FCRA does not apply to… Read More

In Persinger v. Sw. Credit Sys., No. 1:19-cv-00853-RLY-MJD, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188920, at *9 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2019), the Defendant was sued in a class action for accessing a consumer's credit report after the consumer's account had been discharged in bankruptcy; i.e. that the defendant had no permissible purpose in accessing the consumer report for account review purposes… Read More

In Nayab v. Capital One Bank USA, No. 17-55944, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32575, at *24-32 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that an FCRA Plaintiff met the Spokeo and Iqbal/Twombly standards for pleading a "Permissible Purpose" action under the FCRA. Nayab has pleaded facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable… Read More

In Marino v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 5114136, at *1 (D.Nev., 2018), Judge Du dismissed an FCRA claim by a homeowner against a creditor based on the creditor's obtaining a consumer report post-bankruptcy.  The facts were as follows: Marino obtained a mortgage with PNC. Thereafter, in 2013, she filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court “discharge[d] her in personam liability… Read More

In Smith v. One Nevada Credit Union, 2018 WL 4407251, at *1 (D.Nev., 2018), Judge Navarro certified an FCRA settlement class.  The facts were as follows: On July 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. on behalf of a Putative Class comprising similarly situated persons, discussed infra.… Read More

In Randall v. Dish Network, LLC, 2018 WL 3235543, at *3 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Spatt dismissed an FCRA-permissible purpose case premised on identity theft. The Plaintiff has not successfully alleged that Dish negligently violated § 1681q by allowing an identity thief to open an account and perform a consumer credit check on the Plaintiff’s account. “A person cannot obtain information… Read More

In Gilchrist v. First National Bank of Omaha, 2018 WL 317267, at *2–3 (W.D.Wash., 2018), Judge Pechman dismissed a federal TCPA claim because it was compulsory to a debt collection action filed in the state court. There is no question in the Court's mind that there is a logical relationship between (1) the credit agreement between the Bank and Plaintiff, (2)… Read More

In Rodriquez v. Your First Choice, LLC d/b/a/ First Choice Payday Loan, 2017 WL 4855406, at *3 (D.Nev., 2017), Judge Gordon denied a creditor's motion for summary judgment based on a triable issue of fact as to whether the creditor had a permissible purpose to pull a consumer's credit report. Section 1681b(a) of FCRA states that in general, “any consumer… Read More

In Pigg v. Fair Collections & Outsourcing of New England, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01902-JMS-DML, 2017 WL 3034266 (D. Ind. July 18, 2017), Judge Magnus-Stinson held that a rental agreement was not a consumer credit transaction under the FCRA so a debt collector had an impermissible purpose to access the debtor consumer report for collection purposes. Here, the Court emphasizes that Fair Collections' only… Read More

In Demay v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2017 WL 2954629, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Gilliam dismissed an FCRA Plaintiff's class action based on accessing consumer reports after receiving a bankruptcy discharge. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo lacked a permissible purpose for accessing their credit reports after their bankruptcy discharge. FAC ¶ 31. According to Plaintiffs, the discharge eliminated… Read More

In Buckley v. AFNI, Inc., 2016 WL 70847, at *2-3 (S.D.Ind., 2016), Judge Baker found that a debt collector violated the FCRA and the FDCPA when it initiated collection activities against a bankrupt debtor.  First, the District Court found that the debt collector's pulling of a credit report violated the FCRA because no debt existed post-bankruptcy. Both parties have moved for summary judgment… Read More

In Vasquez-Estrada v. Collecto, Inc., 2015 WL 6163971, at *2 (D.Or., 2015), Judge Stewart addressed some FCRA rules for furnishers in the context of identity theft. Defendant also argues that plaintiff has been compensated for these same damages through his settlement with the CRAs in separate litigation. However, the settlement with the CRAs resolved only claims under the FCRA, not… Read More

In Heaton v. Social Finance,  2015 WL 6003119, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2015), Judge Henderson found that defendant's online credit application might be mere comparison shopping such that there was no permissible purpose under FCRA to pull the consumer's credit report. Plaintiffs Shawn Heaton (“Heaton”) and Anna Ahlborn (“Ahlborn”) each visited Defendants' website and had slightly different experiences. Both Plaintiffs registered for the… Read More

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 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 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 Pyle v. First Nat. Collection Bureau, 2012 WL 5464357 (E.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Oberto dismissed a FCRA claim asserting that a debt collector did not have a permissible purpose to pull a credit report for purposes of debt collection. Plaintiff asserts that a consumer report cannot be obtained for the purposes of collecting a debt on a credit card account,… Read More

1 2