I've never done this lawsuit thing

Thanks for all the tips everybody. Here's my first draft. I decided to take a different tack; not only is this an offer to settle before trial, but it is yet another threat to sue; ie move this out of Small Claims and into Superior Court if we fail to settle. Whaddaya think?

To Whom It May Concern:

By now you have already learned that I have filed a small claims suit in Riverside County Superior Court in Temecula California. Service has been sent to the registered agent for service, CT Corporation System, for Macy's West/ FDSB, and delivery has been confirmed.

I want it noted right up front that this all could easily have been avoided.

On January 24th, 2002, Macyâ??s West/ FDSB illegally placed a â??hardâ? inquiry on my Experian credit report (Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Section 604- No Permissible Purpose as I had not applied for credit with Macyâ??s West/ FDSB nor did I have any business relationship with Macyâ??s West/ FDSB). I sent a dispute through Experian. It came back as â??Verified by Macyâ??s West/ FDSBâ? (Violation of the FCRA, Section 623 (a)(1)(B) and Section 623(a)(2) (Duty to Correct)). On two separate occasions, I notified Macyâ??s West/ FDSB via Certified Letter that this entry on my Experian report was in error and should be corrected immediately. Macyâ??s failed both to correct the entry (again violating Sections 623 (a)(1)(B) and 623(a)(2) (Duty to Correct) as well as Section 623 (b)(1)(A)- Duty to provide Notice of Dispute to CRA). Macyâ??s West/FDSB was again notified, both via telephone as well as a written Intent To Sue Letter, again delivered via Certified mail, that the status quo was unacceptable, and again Macyâ??s West/ FDSB failed to meet the requirements of Sections 623 (a)(1)(B) and 623(a)(2) (Duty to Correct) as well as Section 623 (b)(1)(A)- Duty to provide Notice of Dispute to CRA). This can and will all be easily confirmed to the judgeâ??s satisfaction through ample e-mail records, certified return receipt letters, written responses from Macyâ??s West/FDSB and Experian. The paper trail is clear. At the full $1000 per violation allowed by the FCRA, the total number of violations goes well over the $5000 limit imposed by the Small Claims Court here in Riverside County, and so I have filed for the $5000 maximum. As you are aware, the court date is already set. It is October 4th, 2002 at 1:30 pm. Long before then, I expect that we will either come to some sort of terms, or I will file the necessary papers to move this action out of Small Claims Court and into Superior Court, where the $5000 limit does not apply. Additionally, I will then be free to invoke California Civil Code Sections 1785.30- 1785.35 (multiple instances). The California Civil Code allows for up to $5000 per violation, and so, the stakes could get much higher.

Early on, I would have happily settled for simply correcting the record. However, in light of the roughshod way that Macyâ??s West/ FDSB has insisted on trampling my rights, I will no longer consider that a suitable response. If, however, Macyâ??s West/ FDSB does the following three things, I will dismiss my Small Claims lawsuit and cease all legal actions related to Macyâ??s West/ FDSB and all itsâ?? affiliates:
1) Issue a check in my name for $2500 as compensation for my time and trouble in this matter.
2) Delete the Inquiry of January 24th, 2002 from my Experian Credit Report
3) Delete any negative references from my credit reports, including the tradeline that is listed on my TransUnion credit report.
I will await your response to see if this can be handled outside of the courtroom. Otherwise, expect to hear from an attorney well versed in the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Consumer Law.

Sincerely,

Quixote

Cc: David Szwak, Esq.

 

Thought I'd subject the above draft letter to the scrutiny of the P-Nut Gallery one last time before it gets sent out later today. Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

Why indeed.

 

Thanks jrjr35. I sent that out yesterday, so we'll see. I'll post the minute I hear something.

BTW, my short response to lb59 was directed at his useless response, not at anyone else's response or lack of response. I value the suggestions I get here highly. I put them to work. It's how I got all but one of the negatives off my CR's, and who knows?--maybe we'll get that last one here.

For the most part, I've resisted the notion of putting other posters on Ignore (except Bkev), but I'm inching closer to putting lb59 on Ignore. There's two kinds of threads around here, three really, I guess. There's serious issues threads, horsing around threads, and some that mix the two. All have value-- All work and no play makes CreditNet a dull place. Lb59 contributes nothing to any of them.

 

No, I have simply inferred from reading a number of postings here and at creditwrench that this is right up his alley, or maybe the alley of one of his colleagues at www.naca.net . So I simply listed him him and another naca member who is based just a few miles from me (whose expertise is FCRA stuff) in the cc section. If I get the desired response, I won't carry it any further. If I don't, then I will in fact be forwarding everything to the two attorneys named in the cc's for legal advice. I'm guessing that the Macy's folks will have heard of him and the other attorney, and, if not, can quickly find out about them through a web search. Hopefully, this increases the level of urgency. I also think with the $5000 per violation limit that California has, there may be room to shake them up. I hope I don't find out though. But, who really knows?

 

His name is Louis G. Bruno. He's in Escondido . If you go to www.naca.net and then Search Members, you can find an FCRA expert in your area. There was one in Santa Ana and another in Long Beach.

 

Wish I'd though of that yesterday.

Tom