Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Drew v. Equifax Information Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 11, 2008

ERIC ROBERT DREW, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston United States District Judge For the Northern District of California

ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS, DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING, AND MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

In order to better evaluate defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court hereby CONTINUES the hearings on summary judgment and motion to strike expert testimony until Friday, August 15, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. to allow for supplemental briefing. Plaintiff shall submit an amended brief opposing summary judgment no later than July 18, 2008. Plaintiff's amended brief shall describe and cite to the specific evidence in the record supporting each of the seven remaining claims. Plaintiff shall not make any new legal arguments or cite to any new cases in his amended brief. Defendants may submit amended replies no later than August 1, 2008. Plaintiff shall also submit an opposition to defendants' joint objections and motion to strike inadmissible evidence no later than August 1, 2008. Plaintiff's opposition shall explain in detail why plaintiff failed to timely designate expert Richard H. Blum. In addition, plaintiff shall make Mr. Blum available for deposition prior to July 25, 2008, if defendants wish to depose him. Defendants may cite to Blum's deposition in their amended replies, if they so desire. The motions for summary judgment and motion to strike expert testimony shall be heard on August 15, 2008. At this hearing, parties should be prepared to discuss whether equitable tolling applies, whether the actions of the credit reporting agencies were reasonable in the particular circumstances of this case, whether the banks were reasonable in their investigations prior to issuing credit to the individual who stole plaintiff's identity, whether the banks were reasonable in handling plaintiff's disputes and in responding to the credit reporting agencies' inquiries, and whether California Civil Code § 1785.20.3(a) preempts a common law negligence claim against the banks.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080711

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.