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 Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act

Reco Prianto v. Heritage Pacific Financial LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc.

Published: Jan. 31, 2015 | Result Date: Jul. 10, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-03461-TEH Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mark F. Anderson


Defendant

Nathaniel P. Garrett
(Jones Day)

Jennifer N. Harris


Facts

Reco Prianto sued Heritage Pacific Financial LLC and Experian Information Solutions Inc., following the foreclosure of his home.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that in 2007, he purchased a home in Sacramento, which was financed by loans secured by a first and second deed of trust on the property. The junior loan was later transferred or sold to defendant Heritage. In 2009, plaintiff defaulted on the loan, so the holder of the first deed foreclosed on the property. In 2009, a trustee's sale took place, which effectively extinguished the second deed of trust. Consequently, defendant Heritage became the "sold-out junior lienholder." In 2011, Heritage began reporting to the three national credit reporting agencies, including defendant Experian, that plaintiff's loan had been past due in the amount of $96,601. However, the junior loan held by Heritage was subject to the state's anti-deficiency statute. As such, Heritage's reports to the credit bureaus were inaccurate and misleading. Plaintiff then filed a dispute, which proved futile, prompting plaintiff to sue defendants for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendant Experian denied plaintiff's allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses. Following Heritage's dismissal, Experian then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief because the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not allow a consumer to collaterally attack the legal validity of his debt by suing a credit reporting agency.

Result

The court concluded that Prianto's claims fail as a matter of law and therefore granted Experian's motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 25, 2013.


#93050

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

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