Pintos

Pintos v. Pacific Creditors

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 30, 200904-17485California5,123 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Background

Police officers found a sport utility vehicle belonging to Pintos parked on the street in San Bruno, California, on May 29, 2002. The vehicle’s registration was expired. At police direction, the vehicle was towed, and the towing company, P&S Towing, obtained a lien on the vehicle for towing and impound costs. P&S later sold the vehicle when Pintos failed to reclaim it or pay the outstanding charges. Since the vehi- cle’s sale price did not cover the amount owed, P&S asserted PINTOS v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS’N 5045 a deficiency claim against Pintos and later transferred that claim to PCA, a collection agency.

PCA sought and obtained a credit report on Pintos from Experian on December 5, 2002, in connection with its effort to collect on the debt assigned by P&S. Pintos subsequently filed a complaint against PCA and Experian under the FCRA. She alleged that PCA violated the FCRA by obtaining her credit report without any FCRA-sanctioned purpose and that Experian was liable for providing the report to PCA.

PCA and Experian filed separate motions for summary judgment. Both argued that, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A), PCA had a permissible purpose…

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.