In reviewing the state court’s [dismissal], the Ninth Circuit followed the precedent set by their decision in Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009), in which they found that the FCRA did not preempt private consumer actions against furnishers under California Civil Code §1785.25(a). Despite this finding however, the Plaintiff’s claim failed as she did not defend her claim that CCS [a collection agency] had provided inaccurate information in violation of §1785.25(a); choosing only to defend a claim that CCS failed to adequately complete an investigation in response to a reinvestigation inquiry. This latter allegation implicated a violation of California Civil Code §1785.25(f), causing the claim to fail as the Ninth Circuit found that section 1785.25(f) was not saved from preemption by the FRCA. The decision granting the general demurrer was therefore upheld.The piece is good, the links above are mine.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Ninth Circuit finds a portion of the CCRAA preemempted by FCRA
Jenny Toussaint, an associate at Foley & Lardner in D.C., has a piece about the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services. In this case the appellate court affirmed a decision by Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case interprets the portion of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) dealing with the federal requirement to conduct an investigation for a disputed item on a credit report and the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As Jenny explains: