Hasbun v. County of Los Angeles

Decision Date20 March 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-55495.,02-55495.
PartiesSaleh HASBUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Gil Garcetti, District Attorney; Wayne D. Doss; Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 801

323 F.3d 801
Saleh HASBUN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Gil Garcetti, District Attorney; Wayne D. Doss; Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-55495.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 3, 2003.*
Filed March 20, 2003.

Louis P. Dell, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Michelle M. Blum, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Irvine, CA, for the defendants-appellees.

Lloyd W. Pellman, County Counsel, Lauren M. Black, Deputy County Counsel,

Page 802

Los Angeles, CA, for Office of County Counsel.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-06321-SVW.

Before LAY**, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge.


This appeal presents the novel issue in this circuit of when and how a child support enforcement agency may lawfully obtain the consumer credit report of an individual who has fallen behind in paying court-ordered child support. Plaintiff-appellant Saleh Hasbun, a father owing his ex-wife more than $62,000 in child support, argues that the County of Los Angeles obtained his consumer credit report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and hold that child support enforcement agencies need not comply with the certification requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(4) when seeking to collect court-ordered child support.

I

After Hasbun and his wife divorced in 1985, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered Hasbun to pay his ex-wife support for their then 10-year-old son. Hasbun made few — if any — child support payments from 1985 to 1997. In 1997, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered and adjudged that Hasbun was in arrears to his ex-wife in the amount of $62,179.82.

Seeking to enforce the 1997 judgment, in May 2001 the Los Angeles County District Attorney's division known as the Bureau of Family Support Operations (BFSO) requested a copy of Hasbun's consumer credit report from Experian, a credit reporting agency. After receiving notice that the BFSO had accessed his consumer report, Hasbun brought the present action.

According to Hasbun, the BFSO impermissibly obtained his consumer credit report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In particular, Hasbun argues that the BFSO failed to comply with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(4). The County of Los Angeles and Experian ("defendants") agree that the certification requirements of § 1681b(a)(4) were not satisfied. But this is of no consequence, defendants maintain, because § 1681b(a)(4) is inapplicable to a child support agency seeking to collect a court-ordered child support debt.

The district court held that § 1681b(a)(4) did not apply to the present case and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. We agree and affirm.

II

In general, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b enumerates the "permissible purposes" for which a credit reporting agency, such as Experian, may furnish a consumer credit report. Resolution of this case ultimately hinges on which subsection of 1681b applies to defendants: § 1681b(a)(4) or § 1681b(a)(3)(A).1 We hold that

Page 803

§ 1681b(a)(3)(A) — and not § 1681b(a)(4) — applies to child support enforcement agencies attempting to collect a court-ordered judgment of child support.

A

Under § 1681b(a)(3)(A), Experian was permitted to release Hasbun's consumer credit report to the BFSO if the BFSO requested the report "in connection with ... [the] collection of an account" of Hasbun. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A). "Collection of an account" is nowhere defined in the statute, and the legislative history is not enlightening. But the limited case law addressing this issue has uniformly held that creditors have a permissible purpose in receiving a consumer report to assist them in collecting a debt. In other words, collection of a debt is considered to be the "collection of an account." See Duncan v. Handmaker, 149 F.3d 424, 428 (6th Cir.1998); Edge v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 115, 118 (E.D.N.Y.1999); Korotki v. Attorney Serv. Corp., Inc., 931 F.Supp. 1269, 1277 (D.Md.1996).

Like other creditors, judgment creditors may utilize § 1681b(a)(3)(A) to access consumer reports. We think the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) commentary is persuasive:

A judgment creditor has a permissible purpose to receive a consumer report on the judgment debtor for use in connection with collection of the judgment debt, because it is in the same position as any creditor attempting to collect a debt from a consumer who is the subject of a consumer report.

16 C.F.R. Pt. 600, App. at 509 (2002).

Government officials seeking to enforce a judgment of child support also have a permissible purpose to access the consumer credit report of the judgment debtor. Again, the FTC's commentary is helpful:

A district attorney's office or other child support agency may obtain a consumer report in connection with enforcement of the report subject's child support obligation, established by court (or quasijudicial administrative) orders, since the agency is acting as or on behalf of the judgment creditor, and is, in effect, collecting a debt.

16 C.F.R. Pt. 600, App. at 509 (2002) (emphasis added).2

Page 804

At least one court has expressly adopted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • McNall v. CREDIT BUREAU OF JOSEPHINE COUNTY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • February 5, 2010
    ...an account of, the consumer." The Ninth Circuit interprets "collection of an account" as collection of a debt. Hasbun v. County of Los Angeles, 323 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.2003). Plaintiffs argue first that running a credit report to obtain their mailing address was not reasonable or necessa......
  • Blair v. Bank of America, N.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • March 13, 2012
    ...McNall, 689 F. Supp.2d at 1273 (noting that "collection of an account" means collection of a debt, citing Hasbun v. County of Los Angeles,323 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir. 2003)). The court finds both challenges made by S&G to be persuasive and grants S&G's motion for summary judgment against Pla......
  • Robinson v. Tsys Total Debt Management, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 25, 2006
    ...who "intends to use the information in connection with ... [the] review or collection of an account of, the consumer"); see also Hasbun, 323 F.3d at 803 ("Under § 1681b(a)(3)(A), Experian was permitted to release Hasbun's consumer credit report to the BFSO if the BFSO requested the report "......
  • Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 04-17485
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 30, 2009
    ...15 U.S.C. § 1681a(m). And “collection of a debt is considered to be the ‘collection of an account.’ ” Hasbun v. County of Los Angeles, 323 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.2003). Because PCA was collecting Pintos's debt, the transaction here isn't one “not initiated by the consumer” that has to meet ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT