• 2010 Credit Suit
• Liars & Cheats
• CreditFactors
• Fight Back!!!
• RESISTANCE
• TRADO
• News Releases
• Contact

2007 Inquiry suit

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Furlong v Equifax and Fairlane Credit—split file, deleted inquiries, investigations

This is an interesting case by PRO SE plaintiff David Furlong, filed on 3/19/07 in AZ federal court.

While pro se and not a lawyer, Furlong has been rather aggressive, filing for a default judgment against Fairlane and a motion for summary judgment against Equifax in July.  Fairlane then answered and the motion for default judgment was denied. 

They stipulated to an extension for Equifax to answer by 9/21, but then Furlong withdrew the msj.  But I downloaded many of the docs and the transcripts of the Furlong calls are very interesting.  After 2 months, Equifax still hadn’t merged the file. 

Furlong is slow with discovery, he just sent his interrogatories to Equifax on 10/29, already answered the Equifax’s interrogatories. 

Why didn’t he send admissions and requests for production of documents?

Discovery is due on 12/14! 

The Settlement Conference is set for 11/28/2007 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson.  He’s a good judge, as I learned during my settlement conference with Focus.  Furlong is asking for $150K in damages and while I’ve spent a couple hours reading his msj and related docs, I don’t really see how he comes up with that. 

If I had brought to the conference the Nelson v. Arrow ruling I recently posted about, we might have settled. Judge Anderson didn’t think that I could get damages for emotional distress.  I should have been better prepared, but hadn’t realized that it would be the big issue.  I hope Furlong is better prepared.

Apparently Furlong never bothered to look at the countless filings including discovery documents I’ve posted at CreditCourt for over 4 years—available for download entirely free of charge!

I know it’s hard to figure out how to do discovery. I got screwed so bad, that’s why I posted my and the defendants’ filings.

It’s obvious that Furlong did some research at the credit repair boards, but he failed to even mention his FICO scores.  Maybe that’s because it wouldn’t be favorable to his damage claims or maybe he just doesn’t know.  He paid TrueCredit $14.95 for credit monitoring and that indicates that he doesn’t know much about credit.  Especially since he mentioned a mortgage too, I don’t see how you can ignore FICO scores.

I’ll keep an eye on this case and I’ll install a new knowledgebase at CreditFactors for legal filings and references.  Almost uploaded everything to the existing knowledgebase, but it’s not helpful to people who do not want to sue and lots of legal filings would only pollute their search results.

It sure would be nice if Furlong made the Equifax discovery responses public.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Equifax and NCO waived service this time, Trans Union was late

Here’s my email to Philip Wooten, the local attorney for Trans Union:

Dear Mr. Wooten,

As you probably know, I received the TU waiver of service over a week late and I had already arranged for service on 10/5, when you mailed the waiver.  As a matter of fact, had you faxed the waiver in the morning of the 5th, I would not have served Trans Union.  I mailed the summons that afternoon.

Do I have to file a motion for reimbursement of costs or is Trans Union going to reimburse me without going through the motions?

I paid $55 for serving and $4.60 for mailing, $59.60 total.  Please let me know whether Trans Union will reimburse me.

Thanks,

Christine Baker

You may recall that Trans Union, NCO and Equifax had failed to waive service in the 2006 suit (now Focus/Hurd) and the court ordered that they reimburse me.  Equifax has yet to pay me!

Since I had to refile against them, I once again sent out the waivers.  NCO waived service, by fax and mail.  On 10/4 I prepared the mailings to have them served and on the 5th I went to town.  I made a point of checking my mail in town first and there was the Equifax answer.  So I only mailed the TU summons.

The following week, I got TWO waivers from TU, from two different law firms, one to my old address and one to the correct address.  Interestingly, they had crossed out that I supplied a copy of the waiver and the self addressed stamped envelope.  Of course I can state under oath that I included everything in my mailing.  Notably, it’s been years since anyone actually USED my envelope. 

I’m think that this is a ploy by TU’s lawyers to not have to refund the cost of service.  But since I don’t have employees, I know what I mailed.  I’ll fight for my $59.60.

And in case you don’t get it:

It’s NOT about the $59.60, it’s about making it more affordable to sue the credit bureaus for all consumers.  Equifax and NCO learned, TU is a SLOW learner.

I’d like to know whether they waive service only for me or whether other consumers also can save a few bucks.  Experian always waived service for me.

Monday, January 17, 2005

NCO apparently ignored my request to close the Dana Capital Group credit reporting account

Spoke with Kathy at http://www.ncocreditservices.com/—apparently the Dana Capital access to consumer reports is alive and well!  She didn’t know of any complaints.

I sent her the links with the most relevant postings and the Dana press release.

My correspondence with NCO

It’s obvious that NCO legal doesn’t value consumer privacy rights and since they didn’t take action to protect consumers in response to my complaint, I’ll demand $1,000 from NCO for obtaining my credit report without a permissible purpose.

They can always sue Dana for a reimbursement.  And maybe that will get them to shut off their account.

And I’ll have to write to the CRAs to terminate NCO.  Since they continued to sell credit reports to Dana after they received my notice on 12/27/04, they don’t deserve to be a reseller.