Posted on


On January 15, 2020, Judge Marquez of the Riverisde County Superior Court denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC against our client’s credit reporting claims filed pursuant to California Civil Code § 1785.25(a).

Our case alleges that Nationstar violated the law by failing to update its credit reporting of a mortgage loan after they foreclosed on the home subject of the loan and thereby failed to inform the world that our client’s loan and financial obligations had been extinguished.  As a result, even after the foreclosure, our client’s credit reports showed that a foreclosure remained pending from 2013 and also showed that she owed on-going monthly payments to Nationstar with a total balance owed on the loan in excess of $160,000.00.  Sadly, our client did not discover these problems until she and her husband attempted to obtain a new mortgage loan in late 2018.  Ultimately, she and her husband were unable to obtain a new home mortgage loan because the credit reports showed that she had not been free from a foreclosure for at least 3 years (since the credit reports showed that she was still pending foreclosure), and also created a negative debt to income ratio (since the credit reports showed that she still owed on-going financial obligations to Nationstar).

Even when our client lodged a formal dispute in December 2018, Nationstar verified the information as accurate and failed to simply update the reporting to show that the foreclosure had been completed.

We filed our claims against Nationstar for violating Section 1785.25(a) for furnishing incomplete and/or inaccurate information that Nationstar knew or should have known was incomplete or inaccurate.

Nationstar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, where they argued that no rational jury could find liability on our claims and/or no rational jury could find that the credit reporting issues caused our client to suffer damages.

However, on January 15, 2020, the Court disagreed with Nationstar and denied their Motion, thereby paving the way for our claims to proceed to a jury to seek liability and damages.

A copy of the Court’s minute order entry can be found by clicking HERE, and a copy of our opposition to the Motion can be found by clicking HERE.

Posted on

Suffering issues arising from background check errors?

Unfortunately, it is more common than one would realize that people suffer hardship as a result of background check errors, such as being denied a job, denied a promotion, or even denied housing.

The National Consumer Law Center has recently issued an updated report that discusses how a significant number of adults living in the United States are affected by background check errors: about 94% of employers and about 90% of landlords use criminal background checks to evaluate prospective employees and tenant; about 1 in 3 adults (between 70 million and 100 million people) in the U.S. have a criminal record; and many additional people without a criminal record are wrongly tagged as having a record. You can read a copy of the NCLC report by clicking HERE.

At Semnar & Hartman, LLP we are experienced in this area of law and we regularly prosecute violations related to inaccurate background checks.

In fact, on December 3, 2019, Judge Coggins of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued a final approval order and judgment settling our class action against HKA Enterprises, LLC for allegations related to improper background check disclosures and failure to give proper and timely adverse action notices due to our client having suffered preliminary job approval revocation after inaccurate background check errors. A copy of the Court’s ruling can be viewed by clicking HERE.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights have been violated and whether you also may be entitled to monetary damages.