Posted on February 27, 2015
In Valle v. RJM, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA and FCRA by obtaining his credit report without a permissible purpose. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that a collection agency has a permissible purpose only when the credit pull is done attempting to collect a deposit account. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument, and granted summary judgment because defendant showed that the credit report was accessed as part of an effort to collect debts owed by plaintiff, which is a permissible purpose under FCRA. The court also concluded that defendant did not need to have proof to establish the debt at the time of the credit pull, because defendant was entitled to rely on the information provided by the creditor showing a debt was owed.