United States District Court, D. Nevada
Alan O. Grill, Plaintiff,
Credit One Bank, N.A., Texas Financial, LLC dba Royal Management, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC Michael Kind, Esq. Attorneys for
NAYLOR BRASTER Jennifer L. Braster, Esq. Attorneys for
Experian Information Solution, Inc.
STIPULATION FOR PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE
to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff Alan O. Grill (“Plaintiff”) and
Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(“Experian”) (jointly as the
“Parties”), by and through their respective
counsel, hereby submit this stipulation for Plaintiff to file
a First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A,
pursuant to Local Rule 15-1.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 9, 2016, ECF No. 1;
on January 1, 2017, Experian filed its Answer to the
Complaint, ECF No. 6;
the deadline to amend pleadings is on April 11, 2017, ECF No.
8, p. 2, ¶ 2.
Defendant Texas Financial, LLC dba Royal Management
has not appeared in this case.
Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to include the
following parties, aliases of Texas Financial, LLC
dba Royal Management and necessary parties to this
• R.B.S. Computer, Inc.; and
• Royal Management, LLC.
in good faith and in order to avoid unnecessary motion
practice, Experian has agreed to allow Plaintiff to amend the
Complaint but reserves all rights as to any allegations in
in stipulating to allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint,
Experian does not hereby admit any of the allegations in the
the Amended Complaint does not add any new claims or
allegations, but only adds aliases of Texas Financial, LLC
dba Royal Management and removes the party Equifax
Information Services, LLC, previously dismissed in this case.
the allegations against Experian have not changed such that
Plaintiff agrees that Experian's served discovery
responses are still applicable, and Plaintiff will not
require Experian to respond to a new set of discovery based
on the amended complaint.
Plaintiff will respond to the pending discovery served by
Experian without requiring Experian to propound new discovery
based on the amended complaint and such responses shall be
applicable despite Plaintiff filing an amended complaint.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for good
cause, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the
Parties as follows:
(1) Plaintiff shall file and serve the Amended Complaint
attached hereto as Exhibit A promptly after this Court has
entered an Order approving this Stipulation.
. (2) Experian shall file its response to Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint within 14 days after being served with the
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING
ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, ET SEQ. JURY TRIAL
United States Congress has found the banking system is
dependent up-on fair and accurate credit reporting.
Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of
the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods
undermine the public confidence, which is essential to the
continued functioning of the banking system. Congress enacted
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
(“FCRA”), to ensure fair and accurate reporting,
promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect
consumer privacy. The FCRA seeks to ensure consumer reporting
agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness,
impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to
privacy because consumer reporting agencies have assumed such
a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and
other information on consumers. The FCRA also imposes duties
on the sources that provide credit information to credit
reporting agencies, called “furnishers.”
O. Grill (“Plaintiff”), by Plaintiff's
attorneys, brings this action to challenge the actions of
Defendants Credit One Bank, N.A. (“Credit One”),
Texas Financial, LLC doing business as Royal Management doing
business as R.B.S. Computer, Inc. doing business as Royal
Management, LLC (“RBS”), Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) (jointly as
“Defendants”), with regard to erroneous reports
of derogatory credit information to national reporting
agencies and Defendants' failure to properly investigate
Defendants failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's
disputes, damaging Plaintiff's creditworthiness.
Court has federal question jurisdiction because this case
arises out of violation of federal law. 15 U.S.C. §1681
et seq.; 28 U.S.C. §1331; Smith v. Community
Citibank, Inc., 773 F.Supp.2d 941, 946 (D. Nev. 2011).
action arises out of Defendant's violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681(x)
Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
because Plaintiff is a resident of Clark County, the State of
Nevada and because Defendants are subject to personal
jurisdiction in the County of Clark, State of Nevada as they
conduct business there. Venue is also proper because the
conduct giving rise to this action occurred in Nevada. 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
Plaintiff is a natural person residing in the County of
Clark, State of Nevada. In addition, Plaintiff is a
“consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C.
Defendant Credit One is a corporation doing business in the
State of Nevada. Defendant RBS is a corporation doing
business in the State of Nevada. Defendant Experian is a
corporation doing business in the State of Nevada.
Defendants Credit One and RBS are furnishers of information
as contemplated by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) that regularly
and in the ordinary course of business furnish information to
a consumer credit reporting agency.
Defendant Experian regularly assembles and/or evaluates
consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports to third parties and uses interstate
commerce to prepare and/or furnish the reports. Experian is a
“consumer reporting agency” as that term is
defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f), doing business with its
principal place of business in Georgia and Ohio,
Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendants' names
in this Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers,
members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals,
trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers
of the named Defendant.