VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION ON Credit Reporting

JayinGR · 12-20-2006, 03:30 PM

Ok say your suing a furnisher who was reporting to your CR's for violations of the FCRA.

In your RFA the Def denies all questions in regards to reporting as they say they did not do the reporting another entity of the company did the reporting.

to be more clear

Say you have a company that has sever sub companies..

The Main Company is the one who shows up on the CR's so you sue that company.

Now that company is saying they didnt do the reporting their sub company did and therefore they are not liable.

But yet THEIR name is on the reports and their subscriber code is on the ACDV's as well as their name (I have the ACDV's)

So is this a violation of the FCRA? Am I suing the right entity since thats whats on the reports? Or am I screwed and need to move for a Motion to Amend the Complaint?

I have never ran into this before...

direred · 12-20-2006, 03:35 PM

Let me get this straight, it's a possible corporate shell game?

If you sued who the CRA says they got the report information from (and the address from) and they claim they're not the right company....

...doesn't that mean the CRA doesn't have a contract with whoever reported?

hannah · 12-20-2006, 03:43 PM

Jay, the parent company is responsible for anything their sub-companies do because they are doing in their name as a subsidiary of that company. Don't let them give you the run around on that.

JayinGR · 12-20-2006, 03:47 PM

Thanks guys!!!

I am suing the main company and their main parent company!!!

i am not suing the CRA's..settled with them without even stepping into court...

stargazer0725 · 12-20-2006, 05:40 PM

Hey Jay...you should be suing for violations of 1681s-2(b), which is for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. You have no private right of action to sue them for the way they're reporting.

Do they admit to receiving the dispute(s)? If so, they are required to conduct a reasonable investigation (notice the FCRA says "after receiving notice of a dispute....the person shall conduct an investigation, yada yada). THAT is what you should be attacking, if possible.

JayinGR · 12-20-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

Hey Jay...you should be suing for violations of 1681s-2(b), which is for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. You have no private right of action to sue them for the way they're reporting.

Do they admit to receiving the dispute(s)? If so, they are required to conduct a reasonable investigation (notice the FCRA says "after receiving notice of a dispute....the person shall conduct an investigation, yada yada). THAT is what you should be attacking, if possible.

I am suing under 1681s-2(b).. they refuse to admit to receiveing the disputes in the RFA then I reword it in a different question and they admit it. I have the ACDV's thuough from EX and EQ

CtrlAltDelete · 12-20-2006, 10:54 PM

But yet THEIR name is on the reports and their subscriber code is on the ACDV's as well as their name (I have the ACDV's)
Agree with Hannah (jailbird that she is) - it's a run around - just keep on keepin-on - let them explain it to the judge.

hannah · 12-21-2006, 01:26 AM

Jay, I did a bit of research found that the US Supreme Court held that a parent corporation could be derivatively liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 USC § 9701 et seq. (CERCLA, or the Superfund) as an owner through veil piercing or directly liable as an operator, for the environmental harm caused by its subsidiary, if it sufficiently controls a polluting subsidiary.

I have two websites I want you to peruse and you should also read the SCOTUS case of US v Bestfoods. If you go to the law library, also look up Bestfoods v Aerojet. These were Michigan cases and the 6th Circuit.

There have been more federal cases on this but US v Bestfoods was the first case on this that went to the Supreme Court and is still held as the standard. You need to look for more recent ones that may be more on point with CRA's.

Here are the two websites and I will attach US v Bestfoods and the Shepherd's for the case.

DecisionQuest.com

ABA

You may also want to research piercing the corporate veil.

Happy reading...

Enigma · 12-21-2006, 01:33 AM

If the parent company is claiming no liability and is passing it to a subsidiary, Motion to Amend your complaint add the subsidiary.

The go after the whole bunch and let them settle it or let the judge.

JayinGR · 12-21-2006, 01:42 AM

Thanks guys!!!! I will be reading after I play some halo online....

My question is though...EQ atty e-mailed me and told me that the subscriber code and name belong to them. (who I am suing) So if they can report under that code and their name then does it matter what company is hitting the buttons at the corp office?

hannah · 12-21-2006, 01:48 AM

Here's a case involving debt collection and piercing the corporate veil. It should answer a lot of questions and you should look for cases like it that may be controlling in your district. HINT: Johnson sued both Encore and Midland.

Enigma · 12-21-2006, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayinGR

Thanks guys!!!! I will be reading after I play some halo online....

My question is though...EQ atty e-mailed me and told me that the subscriber code and name belong to them. (who I am suing) So if they can report under that code and their name then does it matter what company is hitting the buttons at the corp office?

Don't fully understand the question.

JayinGR · 12-21-2006, 01:56 AM

Ok Oc who DW and I are suing say one of their parent (subsidary) companies is the one doing the reporting. So DW an dI sued the wrong company so they say.

DW and I sued the main company and their parent company that was reporting to the CR's. I called EQ atty today he told me that OC parent company (the one we sued) is the ones reporting to the CR's and thts who the subscriber number belongs to.

So my question is. If the parent company has the subscriber number and they were the ones doing the reporting and thats who we sued. Does it matter if a different parent or sub company of the OC was the ones hitting the buttons and doing the reporting as long as we named the ones who were on the CR's in the suit?

Enigma · 12-21-2006, 02:05 AM

It sounds like the sub is using the parents code to report and / or to obfuscate the true culprit(s).

Hint - Motion to Amend including the kitchen sink and the paper boy. Let them sort it out or settle.

DUSTY · 12-21-2006, 04:41 AM

I had one JayIn that you and the others wont' believe you won't believe.

This company actually maintains approx 6 company names the main company is

CREDITMAX, LLC
CREDITMAX LLC

That's right only difference is one has a comma and one doesn't. One's a foreign corp., one's not. They claimed to be a 'broker', and a real estate company I found in New Jersey was the 'title holder of record'. Of course, latter they signed an affidavit for a new JDB saying they sold it (not title holder). This drove me nuts and I still hope to pursue for fraud and deceit.

And then there's good 'ol Sherm.

LVNV listed a TL and showed it disputed right away, They didn't contact me, respond to my VOD so after some time I called their number and of course Resurgent answers. I've been through this with them on two other accounts already.

Without reason that I can think of except, factoring company trying to say 'no setofs' Resurgent sends letter 'in response' to my phone call. NO 30 day notice but, saying they've reported it as in dispute. (LVNV reported), but you'll never talk to them.

By not notifying me about opportunity to dispute or allowing me to dispute they don't investigate. It's the dispute that triggers the investigation.

So yeah, I have to name them, I'll name Resurgent, LVNV and Sherman and the rude rep's on the phone along with their mother-in-law. They are masters at this.