Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

David Chavez v. Financial Credit Network

June 6, 2012

DAVID CHAVEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FINANCIAL CREDIT NETWORK, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 1)

Screening Order

Plaintiff David Chavez, proceeding pro se, filed this complaint on April 6, 2012, alleging that Defendant Financial Credit Network, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.). This matter has been referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Screening Requirement

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Accordingly, this Court screens all complaints filed by plaintiffs in propria persona to ensure that the action is not frivolous or malicious, that the actions states a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that the complaint does not seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

II. Factual and Procedural Background

On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff reviewed his Experian credit report, discovering that Defendant had reported that Plaintiff owed $90.00 on account number 7752037 as of August 2009. Plaintiff considered the information inaccurate.

On May 6, 2011, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter demanding payment of $111.92 on "FCN account number 7752037." On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate information by sending a certified letter to each of the three credit reporting agencies: Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax. Nonetheless, the inaccurate entry remained in his credit report from April 2011 to August 2011.

On June 1, 2011, Plaintiff sent Defendant a certified letter demanding debt validation. According to the complaint, Defendant received the letter the same day. On June 3, 2011 Plaintiff received a telephone call from Defendant's representative, Celia Moya, who advised Plaintiff, "This is an attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose." Ms. Moya then asked Plaintiff when Defendant could expect Plaintiff's payment. Plaintiff requested an itemized statement of the debt.

On August 16, 2011, Defendant mailed a notice to Plaintiff that it was deleting the entry from his credit report. The notice warned, "This communication has been sent to you by a debt collector. Federal law requires we inform you that this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose."

On February 13, 2012, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter indicating his intent to sue them. On February 17, 2012, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant's compliance officer, Susanne Morado, who explained:

[W]hen we find Mr. Chavez that we're not able to provide an itemized statement to our consumers then we remove it from your credit report as a courtesy deletion because I don't want to impact you in any way. So if you were to pull up your credit report today you would find that our name is no longer on your credit report on this particular account, we removed it off your credit report, back when we were not able to provide you with an itemized statement and you were told that we were going to do that, and that's what we've done for you. So when you say to me that this is damaging you in some way, I question it because we've gone in and done the right thing. You know that there's no law that says that I have to remove it, but I do it as a courtesy to our customers because I want to do the right thing. And so again, that's my purpose of asking how we have damaged you. I care about damaging our customers and to me that is a HUGE [sic] word when someone says "damage" because that's the last thing that I want to do to our customers.

Doc. 1 at 4.

Ms. Moya was also present for the conversation and responded to certain questions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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