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.

Anderson v. United Recovery Systems, L.P.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 11, 2013

PHILLIP L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

LARRY M. BOYLE, Magistrate Judge.

The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on August 1, 2013 (Dkt. 10), due to his forma pauperis request. (Dkt. 9). Plaintiff's complaint is subject to review by the Court to determine whether it or any of its claims are subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court reviewed Plaintiff's original complaint in a Report and Recommendation dated June 27, 2013, and concluded that "Plaintiff must establish that the defendant did not have a permissible purpose for requesting his credit report." (Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 8). The Court further advised Plaintiff that "bare allegations that the defendant did not have a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report, without more, are insufficient." (Id.) The District Court adopted the recommendation on August 8, 2013.

By way of summary, Plaintiff claims that in December 2011, he obtained copies of his consumer credit reports from three major credit reporting agencies. At that time, Plaintiff discovered that, on August 10, 2011, Defendant United Recovery Systems obtained Plaintiff's Experian consumer credit report.

Plaintiff claims that when Defendant accessed his report, it was done in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FRCA"), 15 U.S.C. §1681. Plaintiff claims to have no relationship with Defendant.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. 10) is nearly identical to his previous complaint (Dkt. 2). In fact, there are only two differences: First, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff includes the statement that he "has never had any business dealings or any accounts with, made application for credit from, made application for employment with, applied for insurance from, or received a bona fide offer of credit from Defendant United." (Amended Complaint, Dkt. 10, at ¶¶ 21, 31). Second, Plaintiff has attached four exhibits to his amended complaint:

1. A copy of his credit report (Exhibit A);
2. A copy of the collection letter from United Recovery (Exhibit B);
3. A demand letter to United Recovery written by Plaintiff prior to filing this lawsuit, dated February 6, 2012, (Exhibit C); and
4. A second demand letter to United Recovery written by Plaintiff prior to filing this lawsuit, dated March 9, 2012, (Exhibit D).

(Id.) Furthermore, as was the case with the original complaint, the record reflects that service has not been perfected, Defendant has not appeared, and no proof of proper service is in the Court record.

REVIEW OF COMPLAINT

1. Standard

In order for any litigant to file a civil complaint in federal court, that party must either pay the filing fee in full at the time of filing or seek in forma pauperis status. Any complaint filed by a person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is subject to sua sponte dismissal to the extent it contains claims that are frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 ...


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.