Starkey

Starkey v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Good Law
32 F. Supp. 3d 1105·2014 WL 3809196·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107917
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 2014Case No. SACV 13-59-JLS (RNBx)California2,566 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Staton, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 31)

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) filed by Defendant CoreLogic Credco, LLC (“CoreLogic”). (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff Diane Starkey filed an Opposition, and Defendant replied. (Opp’n, Doc. 39; Reply, Doc. 40.) The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.Civ.P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. The hearing on the Motion, scheduled for January 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., is therefore VACATED. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff and her husband applied with Quicken Loans to refinance the mortgage on their house. (Pltfs SGI ¶ 15, Doc. 39-3.) As part of its due diligence, Quicken Loans requested that CoreLogic prepare a report on Plaintiff and her husband that included the information maintained on them by the three credit bureaus — Equifax, TransUn-ion, and Experian. (Id. ¶ 17.) CoreLogic prepared the report, which identified which credit bureau provided each item of information in the report, and also stated that the report “contains information supplied by the repositories [i.e. credit…

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.