Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson

Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson

Public Justice filed an amicus brief, joined by Public Citizen, in support of the Plaintiff-Appellant’s Opposition to MBNA’s Petition for Rehearing.  This amicus brief argues that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not preempt the remedies provisions of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), and that if the court reverses the panel’s decision and holds that the FCRA preempts the remedies provisions of the CCRAA, California victims of false or inaccurate credit reporting will be stripped of crucial state-law protections that Congress expressly left in place when it amended the FCRA.  The brief was co-authored by Public Justice’s Leslie Bailey and Robert Brennan of Brennan Wiener & Associates of La Crescenta, CA. 
On October 12, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and issued an amended decision clarifying and strengthening its holding that the FCRA do not preempt the remedies provisions of the California law.  On October 4, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, so the decision is now final. 

Case Documents

  • Amended Decision

    Amended Decision (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)

  • Amici curiae brief

    Amici curiae brief urging the California Supreme Court to hold that a company cannot enforce a pre-dispute contract that takes away a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial in future cases.

    Supreme Court of California

    Docket: S123344

Skip to content