Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

FCRA -- 15 U.S.C. § 1681

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 Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2015 WL 1114426 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2015), the California Court of Appeal addressed whether a sold-out junior mortgage holder violated the FDCPA/Rosenthal Act by collecting on the debt post-foreclosure by the senior. A lender who lends money used to purchase a parcel of property and who holds a junior lien on that… Read More

In Wright v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL 859604 (E.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Thurston held that an FCRA plaintiff must plead that the furnisher actually received the dispute from the CRA in order to state a claim under FCRA. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a furnisher under the FCRA, and that Defendant “failed to conduct a proper and lawful… Read More

In Kielty v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 2015 WL 400584 (S.D.Cal. 2015), Judge Bashant held that a debt collector stating that payment could help repair the debtor’s credit did not trigger the Credit Repair Organizations Act. Unlike FreeScore, Midland does not offer any service for the purpose of providing assistance or advice to improve consumers' credit record in return for… Read More

In Collins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2015 WL 55345 (11th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that a FCRA Plaintiff need not show an actual declination of credit in order to support an emotional distress claim under FCRA. Curtis J. Collins appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of… 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 Gonzalez v. Harris Farms, Inc., 2014 WL 6981429 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge O'Neill dismissed a cross-complaint for indemnity arising out of a purported FACTA violation. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) brought an action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno against Harris Farms, the owners… 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 Potter v. Chex Systems, Inc., 2014 WL 4666960 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Burns dismissed a Plaintiff's FCRA claim, where the Plaintiff argued that since he'd paid off the charges on the Account, the CRA should not have reported that his bank account was closed for Account Abuse. Potter admits he overdrew his account, and allowed it to remain overdrawn, and that after… 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 Martin v. Pacific Parking Systems Inc., --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 3686135 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a denial of class certification in a FACTA—credit card digits truncation case that a class could not be certified because it could not be determined whether the cards used were consumer or business cards. The… Read More

In Hillis v. Trans Union, LLC, 2014 WL 2581094 (E.D.Pa. 2014), Judge Davis denied a furnisher's summary judgment in a FCRA claim brought by a divorced husband who claimed that his ex wife was obligated to pay the auto loan under their divorce decree. On April 10, 2007, the Hillises were divorced. ( See Decree of Divorce 6, Def.'s Mot. Summ.… 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 Hunt v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 2014 WL 426275 (N.D.Ala. 2014), Judge Acker struck Plaintiff's TCPA ATDS Expert  Robert Biggerstaff as being incompetent on the subject of whether Defendant used an ATDS.  However, Judge Acker found a factual questions nevertheless on whether a ATDS was used. In its Opinion and Order of September 17, 2013 (Doc. 31), this court joined the Ninth… Read More

In Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 407366 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Article III standing exists under FCRA even in the absence of actual damages suffered by the consumer, In standing cases that analyze statutory rights, our precedent establishes two propositions. First, Congress's creation of a private cause… 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 Farber v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 2014 WL 68380 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Curiel found that mortgage servicers were subject to the Rosenthal Act, but found that only certain conduct might be actionable.  The facts were as follows: In September 2010, Farber sold the Property by way of a “short sale” with Defendant receiving approximately $1,139,345.00. (Id. ¶ 21.) In… Read More

1 9 10 11 12 13 17