In Vaughn v. Grand Brands, LLC, No. 2:19cv596, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176744 (E.D. Va. Sep. 25, 2020), a Fair Credit Reporting Act dispute, the Court was tasked with deciding whether Grand Brands LLC (“Defendant”) should be awarded reasonable expenses associated with a motion to compel directed at non-party Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”).
A new opinion from the Fifth Circuit found that an incomplete credit report can still be “accurate” under § 1681e(b) – even where the credit report omits a favorable item from a consumer’s credit report that could be germane to the consumer’s credit history. Although plaintiff had argued that, in deleting a favorable credit item,
In a new and critical ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals just held that business has a “legitimate business need” to pull a credit report any time it is responding directly to a consumer-initiated request—even if that consumer is not who he purports to be. This ruling provides a much needed clarification to one
Kenn v. Eascare, Civil Action No. 20-cv-10070-ADB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158820 (D. Mass. Sep. 1, 2020) is a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) standing case. Here, the Court concluded that a mere technical violation of the FCRA (specifically, the disclosure requirement) does not automatically confer standing. The Court also discusses Plaintiff Nicole Kenn’s
The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) maintains the Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) list, which is published to identify suspected terrorists and other bad actors. US persons are generally prohibited from dealing with anyone on the list, so companies and governments regularly run checks against the SDN list and other
In a recent case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania[1], the court provided some helpful clarifications regarding the reinvestigation obligations of a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Section 611(a) of the FCRA requires a CRA to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any item of information in a
A recent decision in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania confirms Third Circuit precedent that an employer’s failure to provide a consumer with notice of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as required by the FCRA, does not cause an injury-in-fact where the plaintiffs ultimately became aware of their rights and timely brought
Supplemental jurisdiction, in simple terms, is a statutory tool that enables federal district courts to entertain claims not otherwise within their adjudicatory authority. The claims however should be “so related to claims . . .[in the federal-court case] that they form part of the same case or controversy.” (28 U.S. Code § 1367 et seq.)
The latest entry in a nearly decade-long dispute between a plaintiff and his former employer and manager, Mattiaccio v. DHA Grp., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (D.D.C. July 21, 2020) is an in-depth analysis of standing under the FCRA in the face of unclear pleading by a pro se litigant.
The Mattiaccio plaintiff
An individual’s background is often evaluated for important decisions. When our society was smaller and more close-knit, individuals familiar with the interested person’s life and background filled this need. As our society became larger, however, the need for objective information became greater, and companies began drafting background reports. Several laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting