Plaintiff alleged that Pinnacle Credit Services ("Pinnacle"), a debt collector, failed to properly investigate her dispute in violation of § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA.
Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finds that creditor conducted a reasonable investigation of plaintiff’s dispute
Popular related articles
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Western District of New York upholds non-compete and grants TRO (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Plaintiff IDG USA, LLC (“IDG”), a Georgia company with its principal place of business in North Carolina, commenced an action against a former employee, Kevin J. Schupp (“Schupp”), a New York resident, alleging breaches of a Non-Compete Agreement, breach of a Confidentiality Agreement, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets.
-
Shutting down corporate pick-pockets (Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP)
A 10-year employee accounting manager systematically transfers amounts via ACH to her personal checking account.
-
Employer wins “cat's paw” case (Foley & Lardner LLP)
On August 11, 2010, a federal court rejected a terminated employee's "cat's paw" argument.
-
Massachusetts personnel records statute amended to require employers to notify employees when negative information is placed in personnel records (Goodwin Procter LLP)
Massachusetts recently enacted an economic development statute which contains an important amendment to the Massachusetts Personnel Records Statute, G.L. c. 149, § 52C.
-
Misrepresentations in advertising material for the proposed sale of land: some lessons from a recent case (Norton Rose)
A recent NSW case has shed useful light on the judicial treatment of misrepresentations in advertising of properties for sale.
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Boundary dispute over strip of driveway ends up in court (DMH Stallard LLP)
An argument over a narrow strip of land has left a mother and son facing massive costs after their case was heard in the Court of Appeal recently.
-
Western District of New York upholds non-compete and grants TRO (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Plaintiff IDG USA, LLC (“IDG”), a Georgia company with its principal place of business in North Carolina, commenced an action against a former employee, Kevin J. Schupp (“Schupp”), a New York resident, alleging breaches of a Non-Compete Agreement, breach of a Confidentiality Agreement, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets.
-
The Court of Appeal provides guidance on the rules on equitable set-off; Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd (2010) (Mills & Reeve LLP)
Set-off effectively allows one person to deduct from sums he owes to another, amounts that the other person owes to him.
-
New rules on lenders repossessing dwelling houses (Mills & Reeve LLP)
Shortly before dissolution the last parliament passed the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants etc) Act 2010.
-
Tracing claim (Wragge & Co)
Where property is obtained by fraud, equity imposes a constructive trust on the recipient so that the property is recoverable and traceable in equity.
-
Pre-action disclosure (Wragge & Co)
An applicant for pre-action disclosure must show that its potential claim is more than merely speculative for an application to succeed.
-
Will Dodd-Frank mean the end of operating subsidiaries? (Patton Boggs LLP)
In 2007, the Supreme Court resolved, or so we thought, the dispute between the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (and its regulated entities) on the one hand, and state regulators on the other, regarding preemption over state laws for operating subsidiaries of national banks.
-
The Dodd-Frank Act: a look at the immediate impacts (Fredrikson & Byron PA)
The landscape of the financial services industry changed drastically on July 21, 2010, when President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
-
Potential overtime pay substantial for pharmaceutical sales representatives (Strasburger & Price LLP)
Historically, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an outside salesperson's primary duty must be to (i) makes sales or (ii) obtain orders or contracts for services or for the use of services in exchange for money from a customer or client.
-
Do shippers and carriers face a federal food fight? FDA seeks information on implementation of Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005 (Strasburger & Price LLP)
Comments must be filed by August 30, 2010 in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to implement the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 2005 (SFTA-2005).
-
Court holds plaintiff’s dispute to CRA constitutes an improper collateral attack as to the validity of the underlying debt, grants summary judgment in favor of CRA (Strasburger & Price LLP)
Plaintiff, proceeding as a pro se litigant, filed suit against Experian alleging a violation of § 1681i of the FCRA for purportedly failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute of an American Express (“AMEX”) business credit card account.
-
Court rejects Fair Isaac's post-trial motions after jury finds for defendant CRAs in trademark case related to “300-850” scoring model (Strasburger & Price LLP)
Plaintiffs, Fair Isaac Corporation and myFICO Consumer Services, Inc. (“Fair Isaac”), asserted claims against multiple defendants including Experian, Trans Union, Vantage Score Solutions, LLC and others for antitrust violations, trademark infringement of its “300-850” trademarks, as well as unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, false advertising, passing off, breach of contract, interference with contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims.
-
Plaintiff’s claims against mortgage lender dismissed for failure to state a claim (Strasburger & Price LLP)
Plaintiff brought suit in state court against Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Saxon”), his mortgage lender, for various violations of state and federal law, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, violation of the Truth in Lending Act, breach of fiduciary duty, predatory lending, fraud and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com.