Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grill v. Credit One Bank N.A.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 13, 2017

Alan O. Grill, Plaintiff,
v.
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 Plaintiff.

          MAUPIN NAYLOR BRASTER Jennifer L. Braster, Esq. Attorneys for Experian Information Solution, Inc.

          STIPULATION FOR PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT

         Stipulation

         Pursuant 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.

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 9, 2016, ECF No. 1;

         WHEREAS, on January 1, 2017, Experian filed its Answer to the Complaint, ECF No. 6;

         WHEREAS, the deadline to amend pleadings is on April 11, 2017, ECF No. 8, p. 2, ¶ 2.

         WHEREAS, Defendant Texas Financial, LLC dba Royal Management has not appeared in this case.

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to include the following parties, aliases of Texas Financial, LLC dba Royal Management and necessary parties to this case:

• R.B.S. Computer, Inc.; and
• Royal Management, LLC.

         WHEREAS, 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 the Complaint.

         WHEREAS, in stipulating to allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint, Experian does not hereby admit any of the allegations in the Complaint.

         WHEREAS, 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.

         WHEREAS, 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.

         WHEREAS, 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.

         NOW, 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 Amended Complaint.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         EXHIBIT A

         AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, ET SEQ. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

         INTRODUCTION

         1. The 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.”

         2. Alan 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 Plaintiff's disputes.

         3. Defendants failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's disputes, damaging Plaintiff's creditworthiness.

         JURISDICTION AND VENUE

         4. This 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).

         5. This action arises out of Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681(x) (“FCRA”).

         6. 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).

         PARTIES

         7. 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. § 1681a(c).

         8. 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.

         9. 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.

         10. 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, respectively.

         11. 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.

         GENERAL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.