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.

Stout v. Freescore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION


November 19, 2010

KEVIN STOUT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FREESCORE, LLC, D/B/A FREESCORE.COM, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Manuel L. Real United States District Court Judge

ORDER GRANTING FREESCORE LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

Date: November 15, 2010

Time: 10:00 am

Courtroom: 8

Hon. Manuel L. Real Action

Filed: June 15, 2010

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After reviewing the moving, opposition and reply papers, the Court holds as follows:

Plaintiff relies on the representations made by Defendant on its website and in its television advertisement to demonstrate that Defendant is a credit repair organization under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (the "CROA"). Whether a company is a credit repair organization under the CROA depends on its representations. See Plattner v. Edge Solutions, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 969, 974 (N.D. Ill. 2006).

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any of Defendant's representations were made for the express or implied purpose of improving a consumer's credit record, credit history, or credit rating as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1679a(3)(A). Defendant did not make any promises of credit improvement. Rather, it merely promises to provide a consumer with his or her credit score; it is up to the consumer to improve it.

15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(3) applies only in the credit repair context. The term "any person" cannot be used to expand the statute's coverage. Rather, it is meant to ensure that the statute applies in any context involving credit repair. Lopez v. ML # 3, LLC, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1310, 1312-13 (N.D. Fla. 2009).

NOW THEREFORE:

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice. Because the Motion to Dismiss is granted, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is thereby rendered MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101119

© 1992-2010 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.