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.

Le v. Bank of America, National Association

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 19, 2018

HIEP D. LE, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCATION; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC., Defendants

          ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 26) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 30)

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before this Court comes Plaintiff Hiep D. Le (“Plaintiff” or “Le”)'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26), and Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Defendant” or “Equifax”)'s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30). For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED.

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with Jury Demand against Bank of America, National Association (“Bank of America”) and Equifax Information Services, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). (ECF No. 1).

         Equifax filed its Answer with Jury Demand on January 26, 2017. (ECF No. 16). On August 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 26). The same day, Equifax filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 30). Equifax filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion on September 28, 2017. (ECF No. 37). The same day, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Motion. (ECF No. 39). On October 12, 2017, Equifax filed a Reply to its Motion. (ECF No. 48). Equifax filed a Notice (ECF No. 51) that the parties had stipulated to Equifax withdrawing its earlier filed Response, and filed another Response on October 16, 2017. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff filed a Reply to his Motion on October 30, 2017. (ECF No. 54).

         III. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Motion for Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When considering the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014).

         If the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted).

         B. The Fair Credit Reporting Act

         “Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x, in 1970 ‘to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.'” Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007)). “As an important means to this end, the Act sought to make ‘consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities [in assembling and evaluating consumers' credit, and disseminating information about consumers' credit] with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy.'” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4)).

         “The FCRA expressly creates a private right of action for willful or negligent noncompliance with its requirements. . . . However, § 1681s-2 limits this private right of action to claims arising under subsection (b), the duties triggered upon notice of a dispute from a CRA.” Id. at 1154 (citations omitted); see also Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2002) (“That with these words Congress created a private right of action for consumers cannot be doubted. That right is to sue for violation of any requirement “imposed with respect to any consumer.”)

         C. Section 1681i ...


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.