Freeman v. Equifax, Inc., USDC SC

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

Freeman v. Equifax, Inc., USDC SC

Postby Administrator » Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:36 pm

C. Trans Union's Motion
Trans Union contends that Freeman's claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed because the FCRA does not permit individual plaintiffs to obtain injunctive relief. Although the Fourth Circuit has not addressed this issue, the clear weight of authority holds that injunctive relief is available under the FCRA only in suits brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). Clark v. Saxon Mortgage Co., Civil Action No. 11–0065–JJB–SCR, 2011 WL 2682435, at *2 (M.D.La. July 8, 2011) (unpublished) (recognizing that this conclusion has been embraced by “the vast majority of federal courts”). The Fifth Circuit is the only appellate court to address this issue, concluding that the statute's explicit conferral to the FTC of the power to obtain injunctive relief and its lack of a comparable provision permitting individual plaintiffs from seeking such relief when they are expressly granted the right to obtain damages, manifests a clear negative inference that injunctive relief is not available for private plaintiffs under the FCRA. Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 199 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir.2000); see also Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (explaining that a district court lacks authority to award injunctive relief when Congress “by a necessary and inescapable inference” forecloses such relief). District courts within the Fourth Circuit have followed the approach of the Fifth Circuit, see, e.g., Domonoske v. Bank of America, N.A., 705 F.Supp.2d 515, 518 (W.D.Va.2010), explaining that “[w]hile the FCRA does not expressly prohibit injunctive relief, Congress's failure to include injunctive relief as a potential remedy, combined with Congress's express delegation of enforcement of the FCRA to the FTC, clearly indicates that Congress did not intend injunctive relief as a remedy” for individual plaintiffs. Bumgardner v. Lite Cellular, Inc., 996 F.Supp. 525, 527 (E.D.Va.1998). The court finds these authorities persuasive and concludes that Freeman's claim for injunctive relief must be dismissed.


Based on the foregoing, the court denies Steve White Motors' motion to dismiss and grants Trans Union's motion to dismiss.

Freeman v. Equifax, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 2502693
D.S.C.,2012.
June 28, 2012
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Injunctive Relief: FCRA and State Law”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests