Statute mandating

The three commonly-named sections of the Tucker Act are similar. The Indian Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over all Indian claims against the United States. Specifically, FCRA now provides as follows:(a) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of-(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than 0 and not more than

The three commonly-named sections of the Tucker Act are similar. The Indian Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over all Indian claims against the United States. Specifically, FCRA now provides as follows:(a) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of-(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.15 U. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Section 113 of Pub.

||

The three commonly-named sections of the Tucker Act are similar.

The Indian Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over all Indian claims against the United States.

Specifically, FCRA now provides as follows:(a) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of-(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.15 U.

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Section 113 of Pub.

Your support enables the Guttmacher Institute to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally through our interrelated program of high-quality research, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communications.

,000; or(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or

The three commonly-named sections of the Tucker Act are similar. The Indian Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over all Indian claims against the United States. Specifically, FCRA now provides as follows:(a) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of-(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.15 U. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Section 113 of Pub.

||

The three commonly-named sections of the Tucker Act are similar.

The Indian Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over all Indian claims against the United States.

Specifically, FCRA now provides as follows:(a) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of-(1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.15 U.

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Section 113 of Pub.

Your support enables the Guttmacher Institute to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally through our interrelated program of high-quality research, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communications.

,000, whichever is greater;(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.15 U. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Section 113 of Pub.

statute mandating-76statute mandating-11

The Big Tucker Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims to money claims against the United States exceeding ,000.

James Bormes appeals the dismissal of his class action lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U. A motions panel of this court denied the motion on the ground that Bormes' complaint invoked the district court's jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act. United States, No.2009-1546, 2010 WL 331771, at *2 (Fed. This court therefore has appellate jurisdiction.” Id. The Seventh Circuit later granted the government's motion for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion.

In his complaint, Bormes alleged jurisdiction under both 28 U. On appeal, the government filed a motion to transfer this case to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. After Bormes filed his appeal in this case, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined that the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for FCRA claims. But if the plaintiff elects to use the latter without the former, then jurisdiction does not arise under the Tucker Act. IIThe objective of FCRA is to “promote efficiency in the Nation's banking system and to protect consumer privacy.” TRW Inc.

§ 6902(a)(1) (emphasis added)), and the plaintiff had clearly been designated a “unit of general local government.” Id. The court noted, however, that another statute, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), “essentially pre-empted the field” of providing procedural protections for civil service employees faced with adverse personnel actions. Similarly, and unlike Sheehan, this case does not lack a “specific authorization.” Rather, government counsel agreed at oral argument that the reference to “any ․ government” in § 1681a(b)'s definition of “person” refers to the federal government. This court need not, however, reach that conclusion. The government asserts that “any other court of competent jurisdiction” refers to state court jurisdiction rather than other federal tribunals. In 1980, however, the jurisdictional minimum for federal-question cases was rescinded. Moreover, this court will not hold that the Act impliedly repealed the jurisdictional grant of the Tucker Act for enforcement of FCRA rights simply because the FCRA does not contain an amount-in-controversy requirement. This conclusion withstands an attack based on arguments about an “express” waiver of sovereign immunity in FCRA. See Emp's of the Dep't of Public Health & Welfare v. Rather this limitation means that FCRA's money-mandating provisions do not extend beyond certain types of claims, such as those at issue in this case. Specifically, section 1681u requires consumer reporting agencies to furnish consumer credit information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but limits the FBI's response tools. This different scheme does not mean that the Act did not speak broadly enough to include the United States when it prohibited certain “persons” from use of credit information. The vacated Talley opinion convincingly dealt with this argument as well, noting that “different statutes of limitations are common in federal practice, and the rule is that the more specific limit prevails, not that a short limit cancels out any substantive statute.” 595 F.3d at 760 (citing United States v. Specifically, the government contends that the alleged wrongful action in this case-providing credit card information that is displayed on a consumer's computer screen-does not qualify as a willful violation of 15 U.

Absent a “clear statement in section 3730(h) of a congressional intent to create a remedy for federal employees in addition to those provided in the CSRA,” this court declined to interpret the Act to mandate monetary compensation by the federal government for any damages. Unlike Le Blanc, for example, where the Act gave no indication that the term “any employee” would include federal employees, in this case the Act expressly defines the term “person” to include “any ․ government.” § 1681a(b). Once this court reads “person” as including the federal government in some provisions, a fair interpretation, based on “elementary” rules of statutory interpretation, White Mountain, 537 U. If Blueport would block jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims under the Big Tucker Act, then it would also prevent a district court from exercising jurisdiction (and finding the concomitant waiver of sovereign immunity) in the Little Tucker Act. That amount-in-controversy requirement thus explains the jurisdictional grant in the FCRA to district courts “without regard to the amount in controversy,” for without that language, FCRA claims below the amount-in-controversy requirement would have been relegated to state courts. As the motions panel in this case noted, “[t]he Court [in Bank One ] did not state ․ that federal courts other than the district courts would not also have concurrent jurisdiction over such cases.” 2010 WL 331771, at *2. As discussed, a fair interpretation of FCRA mandates money damages from the federal government for damages. Thus, a question arises about the sufficiency of this waiver and the particular clarity needed to infer a waiver of sovereign immunity when considering statutory amendments that change the ordinary meaning of preexisting provisions. This court is also aware that FCRA provides for punitive and criminal punishment, which cannot be imposed upon the government under the Tucker Act. This limitation on Tucker Act remedies does not mean that FCRA is not money-mandating. As the vacated opinion in Talley also noted, however, a negligence claim is different than a statutory claim that includes an element which is analyzed under a negligence standard. In addition, a separate FCRA provision expressly provides for remedies against the United States. To the contrary, however, this provision shows only that Congress presumably needed to create a different remedial scheme in section 1681u because that section specifically limits what the government can do with credit information. IVThe parties have also briefed whether Bormes' claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. § 1681c(g)(1), which requires “print[ing] more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.”Whether a case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) is a question of law that this court may answer in the first instance.

Leave a Reply