Laccinole v. Lopez

Background

Christopher Laccinole sued Wayne M. Lopez under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing the use of consumer credit reports. Laccinole alleged that Lopez requested his credit report even though they had no business relationship and none of the law’s other permitted purposes applied. He also alleged that the request appeared on his TransUnion report and that other people had posted Yelp reviews stating that Lopez’s company pulled their credit reports without authorization.

Motion to Transfer

Lopez asked to transfer the case. The court denied that motion, finding that Lopez had not shown that transfer would be more convenient or would better serve the interests of justice. The court noted that Lopez was based in California and that all of his business records—central to deciding whether he had a permitted purpose for requesting the report—were in California.

Motion to Dismiss

Lopez argued that the complaint did not adequately allege a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court explained that willfulness includes both knowing and reckless violations. It held that Laccinole had alleged enough to support a reasonable inference that Lopez knew he lacked a permitted purpose for requesting the credit report, or at least acted recklessly by requesting it without one. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss.

Motion to Strike Class Allegations

Lopez also moved to strike the class allegations. The court denied that motion, stating that any overbreadth in the proposed class definition could be addressed during class-certification proceedings.

Disposition

The court denied Lopez’s motions to transfer, dismiss, and strike class allegations. It ordered Lopez to answer the complaint within 14 days of the order.