Blog

Collateral Legal Disputes Not Appropriate for FCRA Action

Bornstein v. Trans Union LLC, et al, CV-18-04773-PHX-JJT June 5, 2019 The doctor’s office failed to bill the insurance on time and did not get reimbursed.  A healthcare collection company assumed the debt and debt showed up on the Plaintiff’s credit report. The plaintiff sued under the FDCPA and FCRA stating a claim of negligence and willfulness for failing to remove the tradeline since she didn’t owe the debt; her insurance should have paid. The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the FCRA claims. As to whether or not she owed the money is a legal question, not a factual

Read More »

Scales Tipped in Favor of Article III Standing Based on Harm Already Suffered Being Fairly Traceable to Defendant

Hutton, et al. v. National Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc. 4th Circuit June 12, 2018 Case No. 17-1508 A class took action on behalf of a group of individuals who registered to take the professional optometry licensure exam.  Groups of optometrists began to notice that fraudulent Chase credit card accounts began being opened in their names. The group determined that it was the National Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc. (NBEO), instead of the American Optometric Association or other similar groups, because only the NBEO stored their social security numbers. Additionally, several of the credit cards were opened with individual

Read More »

Inconsistent Disputes Lead to Poor Results

Letren v. Trans Union, LLC, 2017 WL 445237 (D. Md. February 2, 2017) – Judge Xinis In September of 2008, the Plaintiff’s property was foreclosed on. In December of 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Ch. 7 bankruptcy.  Beginning in March of 2010, after Trans Union received notice of the bankruptcy, it began reporting the Chase mortgage account as having been included in the bankruptcy. In 2013, the Plaintiff received a copy of his TransUnion credit report, which was reporting the amount owed at “$0.00” with former terms of “$4,222 per month.” The status of the accounts as listed as “CBL:

Read More »

TILA, RESPA and FCRA . . . Oh my!

Cole v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., 2017 WL 623465 (D. Md. February 13, 2017) The Plaintiff, Ms. Cole, brought a case against Fannie Mae and Severus, alleging a number of claims under the Truth in Lending Act(TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act(RESPA), the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act(MCDCA), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act(MCPA), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act(FCRA). Unlike most pro se Plaintiffs, who generally strikeout when throwing a bunch of these claims against the wall, Ms. Cole hits a home run on every one, and it is impressive to see. In 2007, the Plaintiff and

Read More »

Sovereign immunity applies to claims against the Government . . . Sometimes

Robinson v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, et al. 2017 WL 1277429 (D. Md. April 3, 2017) The Plaintiff alleged that government student loans were fraudulently opened in his name and that he had only permitted Direct Loan to perform a credit check, not to open a loan account in his name. The parties dispute whether or not a “government or governmental subdivision or agency” in the definition of “person” includes the Department of Education, which is a federal agency. Under the doctrine of “sovereign immunities,” the United States is shielded from suit absent consent to be sued that is

Read More »

Previous case establishing not inaccurate reporting by furnisher bars claim against CRA

Alston v. TransUnion, LLC, 2017 WL 1628420 (D. Md. April 27, 2017) The Plaintiff, acting pro se, alleges that the CRA’s violated two provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b) and 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(1). The Plaintiff alleges that the CRA erroneously relied on the bare, unsupported statements of the furnisher to report that the Plaintiff’s account was delinquent and continued to rely solely on the reporting of the furnisher, in this case, Wells Fargo. The court, citing Dalton v. Capital Assoc. Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2001), pointed out that the Fourth Circuit has interpreted

Read More »

I utilize simple technology to allow us to meet and share documents remotely. You will get the same service as if you came into my physical office and you will be able to get the protections afforded through bankruptcy while in your own home.

 

Call or Request a Consult below to find out how. All calls are forwarded to my personal cell phone; if I am unable to answer, please leave a message and I will return your call as soon as I am able to.