Howard

Howard v. Blue Ridge Bank

Good Law
371 F. Supp. 2d 1139·2005 WL 1227042·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14053
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 29, 2005C 04-04619SICalifornia3,282 words

Opinion

Opinion

Illston, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION TO STRIKE, AND MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

On April 15, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on a motion to dismiss, motion to strike, and motion for a more definite statement filed by defendants Wells Fargo Financial Acceptance (“Wells Fargo”) and Blue Ridge Bank (“BRB”). Having carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendants’ motions.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of plaintiffs displeasure with credit reports issued by credit reporting agencies, defendants Equifax, Experian, Intersection, and Trans Union (“credit agency defendants”), over the last two years. These credit agency defendants have prepared and issued consumer credit reports regarding plaintiff that al legedly contain “derogatory and inaccurate information.” Compl. ¶ 11. This information was furnished to the credit agency defendants by defendants Wells Fargo Financial Acceptance (“Wells Fargo”), Credit Protection Association, and Blue Ridge Bank (“BRB”) (collectively “furnisher defendants”). Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. According to plaintiff, he…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.