Retail Client Defended Against UTPA and FCRA Claims
Federal court grants summary judgment as to Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim and plaintiff voluntarily withdraws Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) claim.
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd defended a retail client in a federal action involving FCRA, UTPA, and common-law negligence claims.
The plaintiff alleged the retailer had willfully violated the UTPA and FCRA by furnishing plaintiff's identifying information in connection with a fraudulent check-cashing scheme, and then failed to take steps to correct the furnished information and negative consumer reporting that resulted. The plaintiff also alleged the retailer was guilty of common-law negligence.
Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the retailers actions she was denied or had to pay higher rates for credit, was in fear of loosing her job, and was unable to pass personal checks at area retail establishments.
We filed for summary judgment based on the statutory requirements of FCRA and UTPA - arguing that the undisputed facts surrounding the case did not constitute a trade practice for purposes of the UTPA, and that the retailer complied with the requirements of the FCRA.
Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew its UTPA claim after we filed our Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support. The court granted summary judgment in the retailer's favor with regard to the FCRA claim, and the common-law claims were settled shortly thereafter by the parties.