I'm trying desperately to find the forementioned case on Google and Findlaw with no success. Does anyone have the case in full text or a court opinion directly related to this case? Here's the case reference info... Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 78 (6th Cir. 1982).
Its posted under Case Law at http://www.proselitigant.net/wwwthreads/wwwthreads.pl There is negative treatment indicated, so I Shepardized it there as well. You will need to check the citations to see if the negative treatment negatively affects citing it in your case. Hope this helps! L
Thank you so much, Whyspers! Are you a lawyer? BTW..what does it mean by "THIS CASE SHOWS NEGATIVE ACTION" and "Shepardized"? Sorry for being ignorant to legalese...
Not a lawyer, but AAS in Criminal Justice, 18 credits shy of BA in Criminal Justice. Shepardize means that whyspers found all of the relevant lower court decisions. Ok, A case starts out in Lower court. then there's an appeal, and that goes to the next court, then the next, and the next and then the last (usually the Federal Ciuruit Court or the US Supreme Court). What whyspers did was s/he found all of the decisions that led up to the last decision. Make sense?
No :::sigh::: just a lowly paralegal, Ted. Negative action basically means that either the case or a case citing it was reversed, overturned or some other negative action. I didn't dig far enough to find out what the negative action was in this case, but if you are going to use it, you might want to do so with care. L
In exchange, I'd like to give you some details regarding my case that is currently in submission (and settlement negotiations are ongoing). I won't name the CRA at this moment until the case is either judged or settled. Anyways, I went to court about 2 weeks ago and the CRA rep actually showed up. My argument/claim was 3 fold... 1. Reporting inaccurate info 2. Not providing procedures within 15 days 3. Refusing to dispute Inquiries My primary case that I cited was the Cushman v. TU case. Basically, in that case, TU consistently did the same thing to re-verify that Cushman's disputed acct was accurate. The CRA had the responsibility to do more than that when a specific, pointed dispute was identified against the inaccuracy... Well...at my court hearing...the CRA rep (wasn't a lawyer either) just brought in computer printouts of my disputes. He also had my written CRRR letters also. My point??? He just had the same old computer printouts and nothing more to prove that the CRA did a bit more to validate my account. Obviously...garbage in...garbage out. Since I presented overwhelming evidence (all my docs in a 2 inch binder), the judge (a pro-temp) had to review my evidence before handing a judgement. Right after the hearing, I spoke with the CRA rep...turns out to be a nice guy and we've been discussing a settlement for dropping the case before a judgement is given. Unfortunately, he went off to another locale (saw another post mentioning his name, coincidentally) and he hasn't returned my calls. I've called many times... What do I want to do? He's supposed to be back in the office tomorrow. I will make my last inquiry to the settlement. I feel that I will win the case, but I want the CR corrections not the money. If this guy doesn't budge or stalls, I'd like to send the judge additional docs (ie. more cases/appeals/opinions) and mention how the court hearing VALIDATED the CRA's feable attempts to verify my account. In addition, I have another small claims that I want to submit against this same CRA if the settlement doesn't happen or I lose the case, by chance. I will make this CRA's life miserable... The case is another violation of the FCRA not mentioned in the original small claims that I submitted. I didn't want to unload all my ammo during my first attempt....
Ted, not for nothing, but I wouldn't call him again. The ball is in his court and if he thinks you are desperate to settle, a settlement is less likely to occur, or if it does, it may be with less favorable terms. I've heard it time and again..."s/he who blinks first loses". Don't blink L
Good advice Whyspers! I just looked at this thread...and I'm an idiot for even mentioned that I wouldn't mention the CRA's name....hahaha...idiot! On another topic, I did settle another lawsuit on the Friday (5/10/02) before a Tuesday hearing against TU. I didn't have a non-disclosure form to complete so I can mention their name at least. Since I had virtually the same case with "you know who", I can't divulge all the details to my case...I basically did a long-drawn statement of charges against TU and this other CRA. I'll post it after this case settles. Regarding my first claim "reporting inaccurate info"...I finally validated this acct status myself (note: there were 2 accts reported by the same creditor...1 was incl in BK, other was paid off before my BK). The creditor validated that one acct was legit and paid off. It literally took weeks to finally get that answer. Obviously, the ole' UDF or tapes could not have thoroughly validated this point.
