Michael Peikoff v. Paramount Pictures Corporation
Published: May 2, 2015 | Result Date: Mar. 26, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 3:15-cv-00068-VC Bench Decision – Dismissal
Court
USDC Northern
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Jeffrey D. Holmes
(SmithDehn LLP)
Lonnie C. Blanchard III
(Blanchard Law Group APC)
Peter R. Dion-Kindem
(The Dion-Kindem Law Firm)
Defendant
Nicole S. Phillis
(Davis Wright Tremaine)
Facts
Michael Peikoff sued Paramount Pictures Corp. pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff accused defendant of violating the FCRA's disclosure and authorization requirements for obtaining consumer reports by including language of certification in its FCRA disclosure and authorization.
Result
The court granted Paramount's motion to dismiss with prejudice because the inclusion of a certification provision in an FCRA disclosure and authorization clause does not amount to a willful violation of the FCRA. Therefore, Paramount did not act in reckless disregard of FCRA's requirements by using such language.
Other Information
FILING DATE: Jan. 7, 2015.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390