finishing up MSJ. new at this....

[jewish_stud]

I am finishing up this MSJ for a CRA lawsuit I initiated about two weeks ago.

Does anyone have any caselaw/ideas/comments to add?

---------------

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPORT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT (15 U.S.C. 1681 ET SEQ.)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jewishstud("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Defendant A CRA we all hate ("Defendant") pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 23((3) for statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., which regulates credit reporting agencies. This motion has been timely filed .

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In June 2004 Plaintiff requested a copy of his CRA we hate Consumer Credit Report to find seven erroneous tradelines. In June and July 2004, Plaintiff disputed the erroneous tradelines (See Exhibit A). After the Defendant investigated the items using its automated methods, the report came back to the Plaintiff with new dates (Exhibit . The Plaintiff then asked for a description of the procedures used to investigate the items pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(iii). The Defendant didn’t comply with this statute, instead sending a form letter response (Exhibit C). Then Plaintiff then attempted to have the disputed information reinvestigated again, but the Defendant refused without giving an response why this dispute would not be considered in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a) (Exhibit (D).

III. OVERVIEW OF THE FCRA

The Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") is a consumer protection act requires consumer reporting agencies to make a reasonable investigation in the case of disputed information. The FCRA provides for a private right of action to consumers to enforce the procedures outlined in the act. See 15 U.S.C. §1681n & 1681o and Cushman vs. Trans-Union 115 F.3d 220, 222 (3d Cir. 1997). Title 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) provides in relevant part: “If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in [her] file is disputed by a consumer, and such dispute is directly conveyed to the consumer reporting agency by the consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall within a reasonable period of time reinvestigate and record the current status of that information unless it has reasonable grounds to believe that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant. If after such reinvestigation such information is found to be inaccurate or can no longer be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete such information.”

15 U.S.C. 1681i

Case law has provided that Plaintiffs have a private right to a claim under this section as long as the Plaintiff proves: (1) the consumer reporting agency was negligent in that it failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of its credit report; (2) the consumer reporting agency reported inaccurate information about the Plaintiff; (3) the Plaintiff was injured; and (4) the consumer reporting agency's negligence proximately caused the Plaintiff's injury. See Cushman v. Trans-Union Corporation 115 F.3d 220, 222 (3d Cir. 1997) See also Stevenson v. TRW (2d N. Texas, 1993); Richardson v. Fleet, et al. (2001, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22581).

The Plaintiff alleges that they disputed information regarding the inaccurate information with both the credit reporting agencies and the providers of information, yet still the Defendant reported new inaccurate information in violation of 15 USC 1681i(e) (Exhibit and refused to re-investigate (Exhibit D) without giving proper notice in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i. The complaint also alleges that the Defendant, after notice of the dispute, failed to conduct the required investigation and reported additional inaccurate information (Exhibit C).

IV. STANDARD FOR REVIEW

A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56©; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986); Jesinger v. Nevada Federal Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). Substantive law determines which facts are material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986); [*5] see also Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The dispute must also be genuine, that is, the evidence must be "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.; see Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130.

A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. at 322; see Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven, 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 1994). The moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 317. The party opposing summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [the party's] pleadings, but . . [*6] . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 585-88, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538, 106 S. Ct. 1348 (1986); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995).

V. CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.56(d), this Court should enter an order that Defendant violated the FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). It is respectfully requested that this Court: (1) issue an order pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P.56(d) that Defendant did not take reasonable measures to investigate the Plaintiff’s disputed information (2) and/or grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment under the FCRA; and (3) grant all other relief to which is just and necessary.

[c m chase]

I'm far from an expert on this, but the MSJs I've studied all have a section called "Plaintiff's Arguments". You need to tell what EXACTLY has no question of fact.

From what I've seen, each of your violations (or whichever ones you are getting the summary on, if it's a partial MSJ) needs to be spelled out and shown why the judge should just give it to you instead of letting the 'other team' have their say. You're trying to establish "this is what I have...here's the proof....here's why they can't prove otherwise."

Good luck!! The rest of it looks good, from what I've seen. MSJs are HARD!