[DUSTY]

This relates to FCRA (15USC 1681s-2) as has been discussed in other threads.

While reading through PACER I found some local attorney's who evidently take Consumer cases, so I printed out their complaints, don't think I'll use them...you guys (and gals) must be doing great because I immediately recognized it as DRIBBLE. I won't even insult IC by posting it here. The shame is there may have been COA, but the attorney's in their complaint listed emotionallly charged recollections of the Plaintiff's plight with NO SPECIFIC references how each action of the defendant violated what specific provision of the FCRA.

They merely ask for over $250,000 for 'violations of Title 15 USCA Section 1681'.

The CA responded not with an answer but, a Motion to Dismiss with the argument:

Section 1681s-2(a) of the FCRA - entitled "Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information" - regulates the duties of furnishers of consumer credit informaation. 15 USC 1681s-2(a). Section 1681s-2(c) - entitled "Limitations on liability" - however prohibits suits against furnishers for willful or negligent violations of the FCRA for the reporting of consumer credit information. Under Section 1681s-2(c), "section 616 (1681n willful violations) and 617 (1681o (negligent violations) do not apply to any violation of (1) subsection (a) of this section (1681s-2(a), [u]including any regulations issued thereunder"[U/] (1681s-2(c)

Therefore, Plaintiff is specifically barred from suing The Swiss Colony under sections 1681n & 1681o, as alleged in the Complaint.

The Plaintiff even had a letter from the OC that the account was fraudulently opened in the consumers name (continued to be reported)but, the (botch)(can there be more than one) Plaintiff's attorney doesn't reply and the motion is granted!

The giant leap in logic is the CA's argument fails to consider that the Plaintiff did dispute with Equifax (a party to the suit) and therefore was entitled to a COA under 1681s-2(b). So the CA's attorney did a pretty good job. I know some of you are looking for cases that ties 2(a) violations to a civil liability too! This was just a good case all around to see what to do and what to expect!

[JayinGR]

Dusty.....can you upload thaton my site so I can read it...The complaint and answer??

[DUSTY]

http://creditinforesource.com/forums...hp?topic=480.0

[direred]

How about posting it on this forum?

[VexatiousLitigant]

Seriously.

[JayinGR]

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant

Seriously.

Come on VL we know you dont like DL'd the stuff....We can post some snippets here for ya

[DUSTY]

I'm just a wannabe discussion for entertainment purposes only individual (that hasn't figured out how to attach files on this forum yet, but could there). I'll try to do it here too! But, the DRIBBLE in the complaint was so recognizable that I actually hand pecked the important part, the response. I guess I was accurate in my evalutation since no one else has commented on the content.

[DUSTY]

Not attached is Equifax No knowledge, No knowledge, No knowledge, No knowledge answer...

Remember The Plaintiff's filed the complaint and didn't even respond to the motion to dismiss. RoyBean, I was wondering the the term "Botch" atttorney was a solo go, or if we could start Botch #2, Botch #3 etc...

[JayinGR]

I didnt read the whole complaint nor did I read the whole MTD..

I didnt see where in the MRD they listed anything about 1681s-2b, which is what consumers usually sue one. RB has some caselaw that consumers can sue on 1681s-2a.

I will look at it more later...looks like a usual MTD..I am sure someone else will be along to comment soon

[centex]

Having read the complaint (well, ok, skimmed over it), I was left wondering how a third-grader passed the Bar. That was the most inartful piece of crap I have ever seen, and that includes a lot of pro-se filings I have read over the years.

Absent a link to each of the named parties, plaintiff should have maintained separate actions for each defendant. It looks, quite frankly, like plaintiff tried to get cheap with filing fees.

[roybean]

Originally Posted by JayinGR

I didnt read the whole complaint nor did I read the whole MTD..

I didnt see where in the MRD they listed anything about 1681s-2b, which is what consumers usually sue one. RB has some caselaw that consumers can sue on 1681s-2a.

I will look at it more later...looks like a usual MTD..I am sure someone else will be along to comment soon

Remember that I said 1681s-2(b) is couched in 1681s-2(a); I wouldn't step into court just naming 1681s-2(a). You need to name both.

[DUSTY]

of what's really bad then. They still could have responded to the MTD!

Centex will you comment on when/why you would want to maintain separate actions?
Would I be wrong to say that it seems contrary to the finger pointing that you want to observe and document?

[centex]

Originally Posted by DUSTY

Centex will you comment on when/why you would want to maintain separate actions?
Would I be wrong to say that it seems contrary to the finger pointing that you want to observe and document?

Multiple defendants is fine as long as the filing provides some common thread that ties them all together. That thread, at least at first skim, was not present in the case at hand. And when the document is of such poor quality that it will not stand on its own, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the action and becomes far easier for the defendants to have the action dismissed as it pertained to them.

Getting defendants to point fingers at each other requires that you be able to put something on the table that allows Defendant A to point at B or C and say, hey, it wasn't *my* problem, we did what we were supposed to do. A filing with multiple defendants does not, however, work when Defendant A is alleged to have done something and Defendants B and C can say "who the hell is this other party?"

[DUSTY]

Thanx, Is is too difficult to get supeona's for information say to an OC or CRA when your filing against a CA and JDB, or must you include them to prevent difficulties in securing the documents you need?