A District Court judge in Maryland has denied a defendant’s motion for partial dismissal or summary judgment and also denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, in which the judge also warned the defendant’s attorney of her “ethical and professional responsibilities” regarding misrepresentations that were made.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit after noticing “significant inaccuracies” on his credit report related to a credit card he had obtained from the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to properly investigate and correct inaccurate credit information, causing harm to the plaintiff’s creditworthiness and financial reputation.
The ruling: The defendant sought partial dismissal or summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to establish a violation of the FCRA and that there was no basis for certain claims made in the complaint. Additionally, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant’s affirmative defenses, arguing that those defenses were legally insufficient and should not be considered.
- Judge James K. Bredar of the District Court for the District of Maryland. denied both motions, allowing the case to proceed. In his ruling, Judge Bredar noted that there were sufficient factual disputes that warranted further examination by a jury. He emphasized that summary judgment was not appropriate at this stage given the unresolved issues regarding the defendant’s alleged failure to fulfill its obligations under the FCRA.
- Judge Bredar also addressed concerns about the conduct of the defendant’s attorney, explicitly warning her to adhere to her ethical and professional responsibilities, specifically highlighting the importance of avoiding any misrepresentations to the court.
