Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
134 F.3d 41 (1997)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
When Deborah Northrop (plaintiff) was applying for a mortgage from the company Mortgage Master to refinance her home, Mortgage Master obtained her credit report, which showed a recent inquiry from Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., d/b/a Hoffman Honda of Avon (Hoffman) (defendant). Northrop had never done any business with Hoffman. Upon Mortgage Master’s demand that Northrop explain the inquiry, Northrop called Hoffman to ask about it. Initially, Hoffman provided no response. Later, Hoffman told Northrop that its records had been destroyed and stopped returning her calls. Northrop sued Hoffman and others (defendants) in federal court, claiming that they had interfered with her ability to secure a mortgage and caused emotional distress. Northrop alleged that the defendants were liable under § 1681n of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., on account of violations of FCRA §§ 1681b, c, and/or e. Northrop also stated claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq. The defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The district court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that FCRA §§ 1681b, c, and e applied only to “consumer reporting agencies.” The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Northrop’s state law claims. Northrop appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cabranes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.