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
Unlawful Attempts to Collect a Debt

Byron Arnold and Kimbly Arnold v. Bay Finance Company LLC aka Aqua Fin, Quantum 3 Group LLC

Published: Jun. 2, 2023 | Result Date: Feb. 17, 2023 | Filing Date: Aug. 5, 2021 |

Case number: 1:21-cv-1182 JLT SKO Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Jennifer L. Thurston

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

Randal P. Mroczynski
(Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog)


Facts

Byron Arnold and Kimbly Arnold brought an action against Bay Finance Company LLC, aka Aqua Finance, and Quantum 3 Group LLC (Quantum 3).

In February 2016, the Arnolds signed a purchase agreement for a water filter, for which they would make monthly payments. The filtration system was purchased from AquaPro Elite Systems for $5,990. In March 2016, the purchase agreement was assigned to Aqua Finance.

The Arnolds subsequently filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Quantum 3, a bankruptcy service, filed proof of claim for the secure amount of $5,926.66 and unsecured amount of $5,917. The court ultimately dismissed the bankruptcy action after the Arnolds failed to cure the default payment. The final report of the Chapter 13 trustee indicated that no amount was paid on the claims of Quantum 3 prior to the dismissal.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants acted unlawfully by seeking to collect a debt related to the water filter and violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiffs' first claim asserted that defendants were liable for failure to provide accurate information, noting that under the FCRA, a furnisher is prohibited from furnishing any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the furnisher knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. With their second claim, plaintiffs sought to hold defendants liable under the FCRA for failing to comply with the duty to correct and update information. Plaintiffs further argued that defendants' furnishing inaccurate information to the credit reporting agencies had an adverse effect upon plaintiffs' applications for a home loan and loan for the purchase of an automobile, which were both denied.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and asserted that the facts alleged did not support the claims under the FCRA and an applicable statute of limitations barred the first claim for relief.

Result

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.


#140885

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

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