I went down to my local EQ affiliate office to try and negotiate a pre-service settlement agreement. No dice, they want to fight on an open and shut case of reinsertion in USDC. So off to court we go, summons is in the mail. Maybe their attorney will have better sense than the CEO. I would like to add that they had kept a record of everything that I had sent to them in a nice file folder. So be careful what you send the credit bureau's. Make sure it's perfect otherwise it can come bite you in the arse.
I am VERY interested in hearing the outcome of this.. it seems like most reinsertions people are experiencing here are in violation of the fcra. Here are some thoughts I have on what the fcra has on this, and would like your take on them: 1) they can't reinsert just with a verification - it needs "certified".. what actually entails "certification"? 2) regardless of certification or not, fcra says the furnisher of info has to finish their investigation w/in the CRA's 30 day window. 3) CRA saying that they didnt' re-insert but that the furnisher of info re-reported is in fact the same thing and that they are supposed to have adequate procedures in place to STOP that from happening.
I sued them for: reasonable procedures to prevent the reappearance of previously deleted information. failure to notify within 5 days of reinsertion. maximum accuracy when preparing a credit report. libel. $1000 statutory damages for each willful noncompliance of the FCRA + $5000 punitive damages x 3 causes of action. $1 actual damages for each negligent noncompliance of the FCRA x 3 causes of action. $25,000 for libel, the printing of false information. Yes I realize the $1 may be small for the actual damages, but I'm going to try to collect attorney fees if possible. I believe there is case law that allows pro se litigants to collect reasonable attorney fees. Whats bad is he flat turned down the release I had in my hand. Confidentiality agreement and all. Now it is going to cost them $$$$ before I will settle.
That's right. Called: "Fee-Shifting". " The concept of the "private attorney general" refers to private individuals who institute actions to enforce certain statutes, where such private enforcement actions are the intended, and sometimes only, means of enforcement. The award of reasonable attorney's fees provides an incentive for individuals to "serve" as private attorneys general. See, e.g., Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991). " Look at the following case knocking down an atty's fees. Also discusses the "loadstar Calculation". From here you may be able to find more on fees for the Pro Se filer. http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/97D1271P.HTM
