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
Fair Credit Reporting Act
Invasion of Privacy

Lawrence Palmer, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA Inc.

Published: Mar. 15, 2024 | Result Date: Jan. 18, 2023 | Filing Date: Sep. 4, 2020 |

Case number: 3:22-cv-02178-VC Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Vince G. Chhabria

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Blake J. Lindemann
(Lindemann Law Firm APC)


Defendant

Stuart M. Richter
(Katten, Muchin & Rosenman LLP)

Ashley T. Brines
(Katten, Muchin & Rosenman LLP)


Facts

Lawrence Palmer brought a putative class action against HSBC Bank USA, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), California Business & Professions Code, California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, and Public Disclosure of Private Facts. Lawrence Palmer died in September 2021, before the case was settled. Plaintiff moved to substitute Mr. Palmer's spouse, Jeanie Palmer, for Mr. Palmer. The court found that Jeanie was not an adequate representative of the class and was not properly substituted for purposes of state-law claims and that joinder of the defendants was not proper. In April 2022, the court severed the original case a into four separate actions. The only remaining claim was for a federal violation of the FCRA.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant did not have the permissible purpose to procure plaintiff's credit reports on an inquiry basis in violation of the FCRA. In particular, plaintiff maintained that defendant did not extend a firm offer of credit via the mail because it did not extend this offer to all consumers it solicited. Additionally, plaintiff contended that defendant improperly used Mr. Palmer's information in connection with unrelated targeted marketing and data mining, undermining the connection that the information was pulled solely in connection with the offer. Plaintiff also argued that the mailer defendant sent to plaintiff was not a firm offer because defendant sent different offers to different consumers. Finally, plaintiff maintained that defendant pulled more personal information than necessary to determine whether its criteria were met.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it did not violate the FCRA because it accessed Mr. Palmer's information in connection with "a firm offer of credit" it gave him via the mail.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.


#140660

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

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