Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am


Postby Administrator » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:28 am

Regarding the contested credit reportings, insure, in writing, that the defendant will take all possible steps to retract its reportings of the account/item and demand that anyone the defendant referred/reported the matter to has retracted and suppressed the false information as well.

Put the onus on the defendant to be sure it cleans up its mess or you can sue them again later.

David A. Szwak

Postby David A. Szwak » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:17 am

294 F.3d 631

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

James YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc.; J.C. Penney Co., Inc.; Credit
Bureau of Lake Charles Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
James Young, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Credit Bureau of Lake Charles Inc.; Equifax Credit Information Services,
Inc.; J.C. Penney Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-31254.
June 11, 2002.

Consumer brought suit in state court against department store and credit reporting agencies, alleging that they continued to report defamatory credit information concerning a department store charge account that another person fraudulently opened in his name, in violation of prior settlement agreements, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and state tort law. After removal, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, F.A. Little, Jr., J., entered summary judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Garwood, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) genuine issue of material fact as to what the parties intended to compromise in settlement of credit defamation claims precluded summary judgment against credit reporting agencies; (2) FCRA preempted defamation claim against department store; and (3) store could not be held liable for a violation of the FCRA, absent evidence that store received notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency with five days.

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.


On November 7, 2000, the district court granted summary judgement for Equifax and CBLC. The court again stressed that the plain language of the settlement agreement did not require that Equifax and CBLC delete the Penney account information or otherwise modify Young's credit records. The court held that the claims were barred as res judicata because, although the Penney account information had since been reported repeatedly, it was the same information that was at issue in Young I. Thus, Young's new claims arose from the same occurrence set out in the first suit and were barred by the settlement agreement. Young could have negotiated for removal of the offending information in the Young I settlement agreement, but did not do so. Young filed a timely notice of appeal from the grant of summary judgment to Equifax and CBLC.

Return to “Settlements, Releases, Prevailing Party Status, and Other Things You Need to Know If You Resolve Your Case Before Judgment”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest