Anyone know where I can obtain copies of this case? It's scheduled for the Supreme Court, October 2nd.
Have you ever tried Freecourtdockets.com? I've used them before for free access to complete court dockets pulled directly from PACER.
Nothing popped up... Wonder if the U.S. DoJ Attorney's office would get me a copy of it, since they want a stay until the US SC has the hearing on October 2nd, and issues it's decision.
You'll need to pay for full documents through freecourtdockets.com too, but it does give free access to the detailed docket.
Bormes v. United States of America, The :: Justia Dockets & Filings Goes all the way back to 2008, so it's taken a while to get to the SC.
Be at the Supreme Court in a week and a half... Wonder how much of a bee, I should be in the Government's bonnet... Would a PRO enjoining the gov't from doing credit card transactions, obtaining, using, or submitting information to CRAs, get their attention?
Just curious, but what is this case about? What I think I can understand and I'm not good at legalese... a lawyer files a petition and uses his AMEX card to pay the fee which is a payment system that other federal agencies use also. The lawyer receives a confirmation webpage and a email confirmation from the government payment website that shows the expiration date of his credit card. Since the lawyer is saying the government's electronic transaction confirmations were a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act he has filed a class action lawsuit against the government and the federal goverment is claiming soverneign immunity. Seems like an awful lot of time and money for a statuatory damages or actual damages of $100. to $1000? And if he wins who is paying the court costs, attorney fees and damage awards? I'm also curious as to how much the lawyer will collect if he wins vs what each person in the class action suit will be rewarded.
mijd: That is the initial case. FACTA requires that no more than the last few digits of the card number are disclosed, and it absolutely prohibits disclosing the expiration date. The government, by no other virtue than it being the government, should not be allowed to be able to willfully and knowingly violate the law. No, consider how many law suits are filed in a given day at the federal level via pacer, how many people pay their federal student loans, mortgages, and taxes through pay.gov; that is the number of people who are a part of the class in the initial case. Each and every one of those payments generating each and every one of those receipts would be an individual count under the FCRA subject to $100 to $1,000. Each and everyone of them were subjected to the potential to be a victim of identity theft had the e-mail with their expiration dates gotten intercepted during transmission. If an identity thief obtains only the last 4 digits of your credit card, there are still millions of potential variations of credit card numbers, and expiration dates which would require a brute force thief a lot of time and effort to calculate all of those potential card numbers, then to try each potential valid expiration date with each of those potential credit card numbers. In the receipts in question, that last piece of the effort was eliminated, making it a lot easier for the thieves to get away with the loot when they find the valid credit card number combination. The short answer, the government would be paying for the court costs, attorney fees (for the four years that it has taken the case to get to the U.S. Supreme Court), and damage awards. Now, there is nothing requiring people who would be a party to the class action suit, opting out of the class, and bringing their individual suit under the FCRA for the damages that they would be owed for the governments violations of the FCRA. Now, the government is taking this one step farther, which is how the government brought this case to MY ATTENTION. The government is making the same argument for any case seeking damages under any part of the FCRA, not just the FACTA provisions that are a part of the instant case. Essentially widening the governments potential victim pool to anyone who has a student loan or mortgage being reported by the government, anyone whom the government obtains a credit report for any purpose, and even taking it farther, allowing the government the ability to obtain a credit report for anyone, without a permissible purpose, because they are immune to any prosecution under the FCRA. In the case that I filed, the government reported incomplete, inaccurate, and unverifiable information, in fact, they went a bit farther than just reporting data that was incomplete, inaccurate, and unverifiable, they reported prima facie (on the face) that the data that they were reporting WASN'T AVAILABLE. They then verified that fact, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times, and not to generic "I disagree with what they are reporting" disputes, but very specific disputes of all five of their trade lines, listing each part of the trade line which was incomplete, inaccurate, and unverifiable, including the fact that reporting "DATA NOT AVAILABLE" is prima facie incomplete, inaccurate, and unverifiable. The government's argument is that we are the government, and we can report whatever we want because we are immune from prosecution for violating the FCRA.
Thanks for your reply and I think I understand this a lot more after you've explained it. I don't think it matters much, for any government entity whether it be local, state or federal will do their best to claim immunity from blame or in the least show a provision in the law that limits monetary damage. Not withstanding this lawyers time and money, does it make a difference to the court or the government if a lawyer sues for his own victimization or for thousands of others that could have been potential victims. It's a good fight if this lawyer wins but in the end the government has a bottomless pit of money to draw from and even to pay damages out of. The government employees and I'm talking politicians as well should be the ones held responsible for these mistakes. IMO Thanks again for your reply.
The question hinges on the definitions, the FCRA says it applies to governments, however the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's contention is that it doesn't include the federal government in the generic government.
Here is the information from the SupremeCourt.gov No. 11-192 Title: United States, Petitioner v. James X. Bormes Docketed: August 16, 2011 Linked with 10A1172 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case Nos.: (2009-1546) Decision Date: November 16, 2010 Rehearing Denied: March 15, 2011 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jun 2 2011 Application (10A1172) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 13, 2011 to July 13, 2011, submitted to The Chief Justice. Jun 3 2011 Application (10A1172) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 13, 2011. Jul 1 2011 Application (10A1172) to extend further the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 13, 2011 to August 12, 2011, submitted to The Chief Justice. Jul 1 2011 Application (10A1172) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 12, 2011. Aug 12 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 15, 2011) Sep 28 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 14, 2011. Oct 6 2011 Response Requested . (Due November 7, 2011) Oct 19 2011 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 7, 2011. Dec 7 2011 Brief of respondent James X. Bormes in opposition filed. Dec 21 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2012. Dec 22 2011 Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed) Jan 13 2012 Petition GRANTED. Feb 17 2012 The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including April 13, 2012. Mar 9 2012 Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner the United States. Apr 2 2012 Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. Apr 13 2012 Brief of petitioner the United States filed. May 4 2012 The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 3, 2012. Jul 3 2012 Brief of respondent James X. Bormes filed. Jul 23 2012 SET FOR AGRUMENT ON Tuesday, October 2, 2012 Jul 24 2012 CIRCULATED. Jul 31 2012 Record received from U.S.C.A. for Federal Circuit. (1 envelope) Aug 2 2012 Reply of petitioner the United States filed. (Distributed) Aug 22 2012 Record from U.S.D.C. for Northern District of Illinois is electronic. ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General (202) 514-2217 Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov Party name: the United States Attorneys for Respondent: Gregory A. Beck Public Citizen Litigation Group (202) 588-1000 1600 20th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20009 gbeck@citizen.org Party name: James X. Bormes John G. Jacobs Jacobs Kolton, Chtd. (312) 472-4000 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Party name: James X. Bormes
Have a question regarding this case Jam, I have a pizza place around my house that I absolutely love. I always pay over the phone with a credit card, and upon calling, I always leave the tip. Also, this place always asks for my verification code (on back of card), so I never ever have to sign my receipt. When the guy gets to my house, he rips the customer receipt off from the bottom of the merchant receipt and gives it to me. Thes receipts contain the truncated numbers of my CC (last 4) and no exp. date. However, once in awhile, (since there is nothing to sign) he gives me the merchant copy by accident, which contains my full CC number, as well as the exp date. Now, I would never dream of suing this little place (I love it too much), but I would like to know if they are Violating the FCRA here. If so, I would like to call the owner and let him know that this is going on. I was unclear, seeing as how technically he is not providing me with the customer receipt, but the merchant receipt. Secondly, is it legal for this in the first place? It seems as though a pizza guy driving around with the merchant copy of my CC receipt containing all my numbers and expiration date rolled up in a rubberband in his back pocket would violate some law. Finally (I've heard people mention this), is it legal for someone to ask for your verification code over the phone? Thank you sir
First disclaimer, I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I only even know about this case because I am an average consumer, faced with multiple student loans reporting multiple errors, and after forcing 5 verifiable errors in verification, decided to utilize the final weappn in his arsonel when the CRA previously verified the final dispute. On the last day for the government to respond, they filed a motion to dismiss based on Soverign Immunity, and a motion to stay based off the Bormes case. Now, the educational lesson for you and them. The FACTA amendments to the FCRA are intended to curtail the epidemic of identity theft. Pre-FACTA the FCRA related almost exclusively to the CREDIT REPORTING and REPORTS part of the industries. After FACTA, the FCRA added section 605(g) to include the truncation provision, and an exception to allow for card imprints, and handwritten receipts. So, if the MERCHANT copy you are given includes the full card number, it would appear to be a violation. The verification number is just that, allows the merchant to verify that the card is valid. It may just be a matter of educating the owner of the FCRA, and the importance of making sure fheir employees are diligent in retaining the MERCHANT receipt at the store, and giving the customer the CUSTOMER receipt.
Good answer in your last paragraph jam. Just had lunch at a small understaffed mom and pop place.. the waitress brought back my receipt along with both merchant and customer copies. (and my cc too). A lot of times wait staff will tell me it doesn't matter which copy I sign and return or which I keep. However I have yet to see a merchant copy with my full CC number on it. Today at this particular place, I walked away leaving a tip, and my signed copy of the CC receipt, which I wish I wouldn't have done. Maybe I'm just being paranoid about a stranger having access to my signature on a receipt lying on an empty restaurant table.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-192_p246.pdf Supreme Court ruling. From my reading, the Supreme Court DID NOT rule as to whether Soverign Immunity was weived by the FCRA, only that The Tucker Act DID NOT apply.
