This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Fair Credit Reporting Act

LaTonya R. Finley v. Transunion, Equifax, Experian, SW Credit Systems, L.P., Plaza Services, LVNV Funding LLC

Published: Mar. 6, 2020 | Result Date: Jan. 24, 2020 | Filing Date: Dec. 18, 2017 |

Case number: 4:17-cv-07165-HSG Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

Colin C. Poling
(Schuckit & Associates PC) for Transunion

David J. Streza
(Vogl Meredith Burke LLP) for Transunion

Thomas P. Quinn Jr.
(Nokes & Quinn APC) for Equifax

Jennifer Sun
(Jones Day) for Experian

Justin A. Potesta
for Experian

Samuel A. Micon
(Jones Day) for Experian

Mary E. Bacon
(Spencer Fane LLP) for Plaza Services

Leslie A. Greathouse
(Spencer Fane LLP) for Plaza Services


Facts

Latonya R. Finley sued Plaza Services, a furnisher of credit information to credit reporting agencies, and credit reporters Experian, Equifax, and Trans, for allegedly violating the Federal Credit Reporting Act and California law. The defendant successfully moved to have the original, first and second amended complaints dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to plead facts sufficient to support her causes of action. Plaintiff then filed a third amended complaint and Defendant moved dismissed that complaint as well.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Defendants violated the FCRA and state laws when they misrepresented Plaintiff's debt and reported the incorrect balance to consumer reporting agencies. Plaintiff contended further that Defendants failed to provide any useful or clarifying information to her in response to Plaintiff's request that the debt be validated. Plaintiff also contended that Defendants did not adequately investigate the dispute and instead, took aggressive action against Plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that Plaintiff has not addressed the deficiencies that the court previously identified to properly plead facts sufficient to support a plausible complaint.

Result

The complaint was dismissed without leave to amend.


#134241

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390