The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant in a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit over a reported missed payment on a vehicle lease, rejecting the plaintiff’s challenges to the evidence, the handling of the trial, and the conduct of the trial judge himself.
The background: The plaintiff leased a vehicle and kept possession of it after the lease term ended.
- When a payment went unpaid, the defendant reported the missed payment to the credit reporting agencies.
- The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant and the three national credit reporting agencies, accusing the defendant of violating the FCRA and the California Credit Reporting Act by reporting a payment he claimed he never owed. The plaintiff argued he never signed a lease agreement authorizing additional payments and that the defendant should have been barred from enforcing a provision requiring continued payments after the lease ended.
- The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant did not violate either statute.
- The plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at trial but handled his own appeal, challenged the verdict, the admission of exhibits, the time limits the trial judge imposed, statements the judge made to him, and the denial of his motion for a new trial.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed, finding the verdict was supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence that reasonable minds could accept as adequate even if two inconsistent conclusions could be drawn from it.
- The panel ruled there was a sufficient basis for the jury to find the plaintiff missed a payment required by the lease, so the defendant did not violate either statute by reporting it. Because the plaintiff still had the vehicle after the lease ended, the jury was also entitled to reject his argument that the defendant could not enforce the continued-payment provision.
- The plaintiff’s objections to the exhibits came too late. His trial attorney had stipulated to admitting many of them and objected to none, and the plaintiff could not escape the consequences of the actions of the lawyer he freely chose.
- The trial judge acted within his discretion in setting time limits, which the record showed were applied flexibly, and in stepping in to keep the plaintiff responsive to the questions he was asked. A trial judge, the panel noted, “is more than an umpire.”
- The panel lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial because he never filed a new or amended notice of appeal after that motion was decided.
