Despite the plaintiff disobeying several court orders and ultimately having the case in which he accused a collection agency of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act dismissed, a District Court judge in Arizona has denied a request from the defendant seeking to have its attorney’s fees covered.
A copy of the ruling in Perri v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff, filing pro se, filed the lawsuit accusing the agency of violating the FCRA, enablement of identity theft, and defamation. But the case was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s orders and failed to prosecute the suit.
Under the FCRA, a party is entitled to attorney’s fees if a filing “was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment.”
The judge argued that the dismissal of the lawsuit was penalty enough for the plaintiff’s lack of activity in prosecuting the suit, and that even though the case may have been frivolous and the plaintiff’s referring to the defendant as “scammers” and “dishonest dirt bags” reflects poorly on him, there was nothing to show that the plaintiff filed anything in bad faith or for the purposed of harassment, and denied the request for attorney’s fees.
