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
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.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390