Roybal v. Equifax et al.

There are two ways in which Plaintiffs can recover damages for a violation of §1681i.  Plaintiffs can recover actual damages for negligent noncompliance under §1681o or statutory and punitive damages for willful noncompliance under §1681n.

Defendants claim that Plaintiffs are unable to prove actual damages because their alleged injuries were not caused by Defendant’s inaccurate reporting, but rather by other accurate derogatory items that were also reported.  However, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that Plaintiff’s injuries, including an inability to obtain financing, resulted from numerous inaccurately reported items.  Defendant’s argument necessarily fails.

Additionally, Defendant’s argue that Plaintiffs cannot show Defendant’s behavior was “willful” as required to recover statutory or punitive damages.  The word “willful” in this context includes conduct that shows a “reckless disregard of a statutory duty.”  Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 127 S. Ct. 2201, 2208 (2007).

Defendant’s argument here again ignores the possibility that Plaintiffs provided them with notice of their disputes as early as January of 2004.  A reasonable trier of fact could find that Defendant’s alleged failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ phone calls over almost one and one-half years constituted action taken in “reckless disregard of that statutory duty.”

Defendants Equifax and Trans Union’s Motions for Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs first cause of action (UCL), third cause of action (Negligent Misrepresentation), fourth cause of action (Negligence), fifth cause of action (Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage), seventh cause of action (FCRA), thirteenth cause of action (Defamation), fourteenth cause of action (Invasion of Privacy – False Light), and claims for Punitive Damages are DENIED.

Roybal v. Equifax et al. (E.D. CA, 2008)