Equifax locking files . . .

apexcrsrvc · 11-21-2006, 03:41 AM

There is a case in the S.D.W.Va. wherein the issue of Equifax's policy to remove litigants files from access (amongst other things) is fast approaching coming before the a jury. There are some other unique issues in the soup so to speak such as Equifax's failure to conduct a re-investigation of the consumer disputes after service of process, however, the "locking" of this consumers files from creditor access is the primary one.

I have had occasion to find that a settlement offer has been proposed. I'll presume that this offer was made in part due to the potential for injunctive and/or punitive relief being ordered.

Now, if you were arguing this before a West Virginia jury and you knew that a ruling in your favor would estopp Equifax from replicating this retalitory pattern of practice, how much would have to be placed upon the table in order for you to relent?

Hard to determine is it not?

direred · 11-21-2006, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

Now, if you were arguing this before a West Virginia jury and you knew that a ruling in your favor would estopp Equifax from replicating this retalitory pattern of practice, how much would have to be placed upon the table in order for you to relent?

I've already thought about this.

Enough to pay off my entire student loan balance.

With a BA, MA, and MS at private schools (plus interest), that's currently in the realm of $154,000.

Of course, considering taxes and all, it'd have to be nearly double that....

IOW, they want to pick someone cheaper to do that to.

VexatiousLitigant · 11-21-2006, 09:39 AM

I think I'd rather take a lesser sum and have it on the record that doing that is a FCRA violation.

Taking a lot of money and allowing them to continue is selfish and that's something you can't be in consumer law as a consumer.

roybean · 11-21-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

There is a case in the S.D.W.Va. wherein the issue of Equifax's policy to remove litigants files from access (amongst other things) is fast approaching coming before the a jury. There are some other unique issues in the soup so to speak such as Equifax's failure to conduct a re-investigation of the consumer disputes after service of process, however, the "locking" of this consumers files from creditor access is the primary one.

I have had occasion to find that a settlement offer has been proposed. I'll presume that this offer was made in part due to the potential for injunctive and/or punitive relief being ordered.

Now, if you were arguing this before a West Virginia jury and you knew that a ruling in your favor would estopp Equifax from replicating this retalitory pattern of practice, how much would have to be placed upon the table in order for you to relent?

Hard to determine is it not?

What case please?

hannah · 11-21-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean

What case please?

PM it to him Apex, for right now if you do at all...it's not safe with what some people consider to be UPL...

direred · 11-21-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant

I think I'd rather take a lesser sum and have it on the record that doing that is a FCRA violation.

Taking a lot of money and allowing them to continue is selfish and that's something you can't be in consumer law as a consumer.

While I get your point, the chance that a CRA is going to pay me a quarter mil plus in hush money is non-existent.

hannah · 11-21-2006, 07:13 PM

Apex, attached is Spector v Equifax...

centex · 11-21-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant

I think I'd rather take a lesser sum and have it on the record that doing that is a FCRA violation.

Taking a lot of money and allowing them to continue is selfish and that's something you can't be in consumer law as a consumer.

If I file litigation either for myself or on behalf of the client, then the client's needs/desires come first. Not all plaintiffs are out to change the world. It isn't about being selfish, but rather it IS about judicial economy. If I have a reasonable offer on the table, then I could not in good faith recommend to a client that they turn it down on principle. Similarly, *most* litigants have a number in mind on civil litigation because *most* litigants realize that a case will never see a jury/bench trial. Thus defendants have a number they expect and plaintiffs have a number they expect will bring the case to a close. It is no different than plea offers in the criminal realm...

spinn · 11-21-2006, 08:45 PM

Its an incredibly slimy tactic on EQs part but the question I would ask is....

How much is one damaged if their report is taken off line but there are two other CRAs to pull from?

With that being said......I wouldnt settle for less than $117,512,273.

apexcrsrvc · 11-21-2006, 09:24 PM

One can become damaged in the mortgage process insofar as there is no middle score with only two scores. Of course this is assuming Equifax would represent the high or the middle score.

VexatiousLitigant · 11-21-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

If I file litigation either for myself or on behalf of the client, then the client's needs/desires come first. Not all plaintiffs are out to change the world. It isn't about being selfish, but rather it IS about judicial economy. If I have a reasonable offer on the table, then I could not in good faith recommend to a client that they turn it down on principle. Similarly, *most* litigants have a number in mind on civil litigation because *most* litigants realize that a case will never see a jury/bench trial. Thus defendants have a number they expect and plaintiffs have a number they expect will bring the case to a close. It is no different than plea offers in the criminal realm...

It depends on the issue.

If it were an issue that would be breaking new ground, I'd much rather take it to trial than settle. If I settle, they can continue doing the same thing and pay hush money every so often. I would settle for an offer in judgment.

Imagine if the first FDCPA case that coined the term overshadowing had been settled out of court?

jlynn · 11-21-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant

It depends on the issue.

If it were an issue that would be breaking new ground, I'd much rather take it to trial than settle.

But, do you feel that way because you realize there are the masses out there that would benefit from you breaking new ground?

In other words, if you were VL, all alone with a CRA problem, thinking it was not widespread (as they would like the public to believe), would you want it over with quickly, with your needs/desires met, or would you still want to break new ground?

VexatiousLitigant · 11-22-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlynn

But, do you feel that way because you realize there are the masses out there that would benefit from you breaking new ground?

Yes.

Quote:

In other words, if you were VL, all alone with a CRA problem, thinking it was not widespread (as they would like the public to believe), would you want it over with quickly, with your needs/desires met, or would you still want to break new ground?

Not sure I understand this. If I felt the problem was not widespread and I was all alone, would I think I was breaking new ground?