Thursday, August 07, 2008
Kok v. Palisades and CRAs—FDCPA and FCRA
Kok v. Palisades, TU, Experian and Equifax 2:08-cv-00915-NVW (FDCPA and FCRA)
That’s a very interesting case. After several judges recused themselves, infamous judge Wake got it.
The scheduling hearing is set, Kok’s discovery went out and Equifax already threw him some “going away” money and/or deletion (the money is probably for the legal fees) and they settled.
Palisades attorney Kaplan SUED Kok in local court and then DISMISSED, apparently after he didn’t answer and I suspect they had NO documentation and only sued to get him to settle. (Just guessing, but why else would they dismiss?)
The account was from 2000, but Palisades verified with all 3 CRAs with a 2003 aging date and outstanding balance after Kok disputed as reaged.
Bybee wrote a LONG complaint with lots of bla bla bla, but nothing about what exactly the FDCPA violations are. I’m hoping it’s for suing Kok.
Now Kok is suing everybody in federal court because he sent the dismissal with the disputes (attached as exhibit) and they didn’t delete the reaged account.
32. On or about August 16, 2007, Palisades filed a Notice of Dismissal on the Justice Court case. A copy of the Notice of Dismissal is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
33. In the Notice of Dismissal, Palisades states that the case was dismissed “on the grounds that the matter has been compromised and or settled.”
34. In or March 2008, Palisades reported the AT&T account to Plaintiff’s credit file with Experian, Trans Union and Equifax, showing that the account as opened in March 2005, and that it was a current account with a balance owing of $904 as of March 2008.
35. Upon information and belief, when it reported account, Palisades failed to notify each of the consumer reporting agencies that Plaintiff disputed the debt.
36. In March 2008, Plaintiff sent a letter to Experian disputing the Palisades tradeline, stating that the Palisades debt defaulted with AT&T in November 2000, and that the debt was too old to collect, and too old to report on his credit report.
37. Plaintiff attached a copy of the Notice of Dismissal to his letter to Experian.
38. Upon information and belief, upon receipt of Plaintiff’s dispute letter and attachment, Experian contacted Palisades by sending an electronic Consumer Dispute Verification Form or ACDV.
39. Upon information and belief, Experian did not send Palisades a copy of Plaintiff’s dispute letter, or a copy of the Notice of Dismissal attached to the letter.
40. Upon information and belief, Palisades returned the ACDV to Experian indicating that its tradeline as reported was correct.
41. On April 14, 2008, Experian sent Plaintiff notice that Palisades verified its tradeline, and that it remains on his Experian credit report.
42. Upon information and belief, Experian’s investigation of Plaintiff’s dispute of the Palisades tradeline consisted only of contacting Palisades through sending an ACDV.
...
The complaint is posted with the CreditFactors legal resources and I’ll update there occasionally.
This would make a great case to make some good case law, if it wasn’t judge Wake and attorney Bybee. In the past, I wasn’t too impressed with Bybee, but after having been in this court for a number of years, I’m beginning to understand.
Especially with a judge like Wake, all you can hope for is to get a little “going away” money. I’ve never seen an AZ consumer attorney appeal.
Legal • Court - rulings - procedures • (0) Comments • Permalink
