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.

Young v. Transunion Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. California

May 19, 2015

JEFFREY N. YOUNG and BARRY J. DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
TRANSUNION CORP., et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TRANS UNION LLC, TRANSUNION CORP. AND TRANSUNION HOLDING COMPANY, INC., EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, EQUIFAX INC., SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., AND SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA DIVISION (ECF No. 33)

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

On June 25, 2013, Plaintiff Jeffrey N. Young ("Young") commenced this putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On November 12, 2013, Defendants TransUnion Corp., TransUnion Holding Company, Inc., Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information Services LLC, SunTrust Mortgage Inc., and SunTrust Banks, Inc. moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for an order dismissing Young's complaint for improper venue or, in the alternative, transferring the case to the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. (ECF No. 18.)

Shortly, thereafter, on December 2, 2013, Young filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") against Defendants TransUnion Corp., TransUnion LLC, and TransUnion Holding Company, Inc., (the "TransUnion Defendants"); Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC (the "Equifax Defendants"); SunTrust Mortgage Inc. and SunTrust Banks, Inc. (the "Sun Trust Defendants"), and OneWest Bank, FSB (collectively, "Defendants"), adding Barry J. Davis ("Davis") as a plaintiff and adding a cause of action under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. (ECF No. 23.)

On March 11, 2014, the TransUnion Defendants, Equifax Defendants, and Sun Trust Defendants filed another motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant OneWest Bank FSB submitted a declaration stating it does not oppose the transfer. (ECF No. 37.)

A hearing was held on the motion on May 18, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 25, 2013, Young commenced this action against all Defendants with the exception of TransUnion LLC and OneWest Bank FSB. (ECF No. 1 ("Complaint").) The Complaint alleges Young is a resident of Florida. ( Id . at ¶ 14.) It further alleges that Defendants TransUnion Corp. and TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois ( id . at ¶¶ 16, 21); the Equifax Defendants are Georgia corporations with their principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia ( id . at ¶¶ 26, 30); and the Sun Trust Defendants are Virginia corporations with their principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia ( id . at ¶¶ 37, 43).[1]

The Complaint alleges that Young obtained a mortgage loan from the Sun Trust Defendants in Palm Beach County, Florida. ( Id . at ¶ 48.) The mortgage was to purchase a home located in Palm Beach, Florida. ( Id .) The Complaint further alleges that, despite accomplishing a short sale of this real property, the Sun Trust Defendants erroneously reported to the three major credit bureaus that a foreclosure proceeding had been commenced and/or completed. ( Id . at ¶¶ 50, 55.) According to the Complaint, Defendants TransUnion Corp. and TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. and the Equifax Defendants did not provide creditors like the Sun Trust Defendants with a code for describing a short sale; therefore, Defendants TransUnion Corp. and TransUnion Holding Company, Inc. and the Equifax Defendants reported on Plaintiff's credit report that Young had gone into foreclosure when, in fact, a short sale had been accomplished. ( Id . at ¶¶ 56, 59.) None of the activity described in the Complaint happened in California. The Complaint alleges a class action on behalf of the following:

All individuals in the United States for whom TransUnion, at any time since June 24, 2008, reported alleged foreclosure information in a credit report, "consumer disclosure, " "file disclosure, " and/or "consumer report, " even though a foreclosure proceeding had not been filed against the individual in a court of law.

( Id . at ¶ 89.)

On November 12, 2013, all Defendants with the exception of TransUnion LLC and OneWest Bank FSB filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. (ECF No. 18.) On December 2, 2013, the FAC was filed adding Davis as a plaintiff, OneWest Bank FSB and TransUnion LLC as defendants, and a cause of action under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The FAC alleges the TransUnion Defendants are all Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois (FAC at ¶¶ 17, 22, 27); the Equifax Defendants are Georgia corporations with their principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia ( id . at ¶¶ 34, 38); and the Sun Trust Defendants are Virginia corporations with their principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia ( id . at ¶¶ 47, 53). The FAC further alleges Davis is a resident of Orange County, California ( Id . at ¶ 16) and that OneWest Bank FSB is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Pasadena, California ( id . at ¶ 59).

The FAC's allegations with respect to Young remain the same as in the Complaint. ( Id . at ¶¶ 64-75.) The FAC alleges that Davis completed a short sale on his property in which OneWest Bank FSB was the lender. ( Id . at ¶¶ 104-105.) The FAC does not allege where Davis' property was located or where he entered into the mortgage. According to the FAC:

Although the credit reports he has obtained from TransUnion [and] Equifax... do not explicitly describe his short sale as a "foreclosure, " the status of the short sale was unclearly and/or inaccurately described by TransUnion and Equifax. Moreover, it is plausible that TransUnion ...

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.