Verizon Wireless Their attorney Brett Goodman, Arbitrator John Garman and also Verizon Wireless is being racist, they want me to have all white people against me who is black Los Angeles California

Brett Goodman and Garman aren't a racist. 

I requested a black arbitrator to stop the dismissal. That is the truth.

I didn't understand what was happening. 

And when the case manager asked Brett Goodman, the lawyer for Verizon if he accepted it.

There were no response from him... so I used that to make sure I have the Black Arbitrator, to slow

the pace of AAA.

I am so nervous, I really don't want to lose. 

Since the case manager changed the arbitrator...  I was able to go to the law library and look up what can help me with my case. And I am so glad that I did. I wasn't going to go to Law Library at all, but after that lawyer represented Western Dental asked me do I have the docket number or reference number during the Deposition... I said um no. 

I was soooo unprepared. If I hadn't talk to that lawyer...  I would have lost the case against Verizon. Whew. 

I see why it is important to hire a lawyer, because I had no clue. And wow, I saw that Verizon and AT&T did in fact violated the ADA...  they are the common carriers and they suppose to provide TTY relay online that come with internet.  I do not like VRS, video relay service. Especially when my hair is a mess most of the time. It took me too long to turn on the tv and put it on the correct channel, in order for me to use the Sorenson VRS. 

And even Sorenson PC, I have to turn on computer and see who may call me. And I have to log in, most of the time, I would forget my password. 

Obama's 21st century...  $10 million dollars is offered, and I don't understand why I am paying for internet service every month ($35), especially when Obama isn't increasing the cost of living.  I am happy that my new apartment management didn't increase my rent for next year. whew....  Ugh, I hate being poor. 

Yeah I requested a Black interpreter, because I had 2 blonded hair white interpreters were screwing me up... Yeah I am paranoid.  I am stress out, depressed...  

Why should I pay $800 a month...?   It shouldn't be that way...    Why are people paying so much? I don't get it. Signal is from the sun isn't it? Do we run out of signal? Why not build more towers, if we have telephone poles everywhere, why not build more tower, maybe it will be more cheaper...  

You won't have to go outside and try to get the best signal.  If signal is no good, why sell it?   What's up? 

Again, I'm sorry...  Brett Goodman and the Arbitrator Garman are not racists.

 After reading your complaint I can see WHY YOU want a black/African American person. YOU KNOW that YOUR situation is a lost cause and YOU expect that a black person is going to buy your lies easier then the white people who KNOW you are lying!! YOU are despicable!!! YOU are playing the race card to bail YOU out of a financial situation!! Its the usual!! YOU only use the race card when it benefits YOU!!! YOU want a black arbitrator because YOU KNOW that the WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BUDGE IN YOUR FAVOR!!!! YOUR disability IS NOT THIER FAULT!!!! YOUR inability to function with the amount of data YOU get is ON YOU!!!! Deaf people have been able to communicate for a VERY LONG TIME!!!! Its called PAPER!!!!!! I have several deaf customers who require special handling. I grab a load of paper and two pens and we have our discussion!!! How is it the EVERYONE else can use that brain for more then keeping the vacume at bay and YOU cannot?? A black person is NOT going to automatically buy YOUR TALE OF WOE!!! Black, white, brown, yellow, red..... it doesn't matter their skin color!! THEY have a job to do. YOU want a black PERSON to rule in YOUR favor and the reality is that if this has gone to arbitration YOU are already in the WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU are fighting a legal bill and YOU are attempting to use YOUR disability as justification for this course of action. The reality is that YOU are either TOO CHEAP or just BROKE and YOU are expecting a BLACK person to arbitraight in YOUR favor. IT WONT HAPPEN!!!!!! Pay your bill, pay what you owe and STOP expecting that YOUR AGE or YOUR RACE are going to garner YOU any leyway. If I were YOU I would be worried that Verizon finds YOUR post. As I understand it, by discussing a ongoing legal matter WITHOUT the other partys consent, YOU have basically put a nice fat bullseye on YOUR back!! Then add to it that YOUR post is BLATANT defamation and YOU are looking at even MORE legal bills!! Are YOU going to request a BALCK prosecutor? A BLACK Judge?? A BLACK Jury?? YOU are an American, perhaps YOU should just admit that YOU SCREWED UP and move on and learn a lesson from all of this. YOUR RACE ISSUES has ZERO BEARING on the FACT that YOU did not pay your bill. That YOU used MORE data then YOU are setup to have and YOU expect that YOUR DISABILITY is going to factor into the situation, when THAT is the furthest thing from the truth. As a disabled person myself I find YOUR ACTIONS to be a horrible example of HOW our aged persons in this country are MORE RACIST then the average citizen. How our "elders" are nothing but living RELICS of an era of intolerance and bigotry.

I went to the Verizon Wireless store... they don't have the equipment for me to use.

Not even in the Verizon website.

And they did violated the 255 section ADA, they don't provide service for the people with speech and hearing impairment. 

How can I use 10GB with TTY relay online.... ? 10GB is not enough. T-Mobile is starting to do the same, selling 10GB for $80.  I can't read the data, I don't know how to. I don't even know what a data look like. 

Verizon needs to offer unlimited data...    I don't understand, it isn't like oil and water that they are running out of.

There are 45 million people with hearing loss...  

That is more people than Blacks and Hispanics!!!

AT&T doesn't have one either... and they took over Pacific bell company in Los Angeles...   and their signal are lousy. I can't even call 911 with their internet service.  SO I can be able to use TTY Relay online. 

FCC isn't looking after us... they don't even have that much power... Just living off of government and lawuit settlement. 

Your report makes no sense!! What does the race of the interpretor have to do with anything?? What is the reason you think you deserve 1 million dollars from Verizon for?? STOP playing the RACE card because guess what??? Your race has nothing to do with it because you failed to state the reason for your idiotic suit.

YU | MOHANDESI LLP
B. Ben Mohandesi (SBN 214921)
213.377.5505 | bmohandesi@yumollp.com
Jordan S. Yu (SBN 227341)
213.377.5502 | jyu@yumollp.com

Brett B. Goodman (SBN 260899)
213.375.3543 | bgoodman@yumollp.com
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.377.5501 Facsimile
Attorneys for Respondent
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,
erroneously sued as Verizon
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
IN THE MATTER OF
PATRICE E
Claimant,
vs.
VERIZON,
Respondent.
Case No.: 01-15-0002-7108-2-CS
RESPONDENT CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON
WIRELESS’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#8

– ii – !
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
II. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS ................................................................... 1
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ........................................ 5
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ 6
A. Claimant Cannot Establish A Violation Of The ADA As A
Matter Of Law ................................................................................................... 6
i. Verizon Wireless Did Not Violate Section 255(c) Of The ADA ................. 6
ii. Verizon Wireless Did Not Violate Section 225(c) Of The ADA ................ 7
B. Claimant Cannot Establish A “Tort” Cause of Action Against Verizon
Wireless ............................................................................................................. 8
C. Claimant Cannot Establish A Credit Reporting Violation ................................ 9
V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 11
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I.! INTRODUCTION
Claimant Patrice E (“Claimant”) alleges that she incurred approximately
$800 in overage charges by exceeding her monthly data allowance. Claimant also
contends that she is hearing impaired, and when she contacted Respondent Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon Wireless” or “Respondent”) to inquire
about the overage charges, Verizon Wireless’s representatives were “cruel” and lost
patience with Claimant. Based on these allegations, Claimant asserts one cause of
action against Verizon Wireless in her Demand for Arbitration for violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. (“ADA”).1
Being rude or losing patience with a customer, however, cannot constitute the
basis of an ADA claim, or any other claim for that matter. Accordingly, even if these
allegations are true, Claimant has failed to state a cognizable claim against Verizon
Wireless. Moreover, the evidence unequivocally establishes that Claimant’s legally
inconsequential allegations are not true. Instead, several TTY Relay call transcripts
produced by Claimant reflect that numerous Verizon Wireless representatives
courteously attempted to address Claimant’s billing inquiry by issuing Claimant
account credits and breaking Claimant’s balance into smaller payments to avoid
collections and potential credit damage.

Accordingly, this action is ripe for summary disposition. Further, consistent
with the underlying goals of arbitration, which is the speedy and efficient resolution of
disputes, this arbitration should be decided on the papers.
Verizon Wireless respectfully requests that the arbitrator grant this Motion, and
dismiss Claimant’s demand for arbitration with prejudice.
II.! SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS
On or about May 7, 2014, Claimant went to a Verizon Wireless retail store to
1 In her First Amended Complaint, Claimant also alleged a claim for “tort,” although that claim does
not appear in Claimant’s Demand for Arbitration. In addition, Claimant makes a passing reference
to Respondent’s credit reporting. Although these claims are not currently asserted by Claimant, and
such claims cannot succeed in any event, Verizon Wireless addresses these allegations below.
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
activate a new account. Declaration of Jody Citizen, ¶ 3. Claimant selected a
“Jetpack” plan on the MORE Everything Data Plan, with 10 gigabytes of data per
month. Id.
Subsequently, Claimant exceeded her 10 gigabyte per month data plan.
Declaration of Jody Citizen, ¶ 4. Claimant’s first monthly bill, dated June 7, 2014,
reflected data overage charges in the amount of $255.00. Declaration of Jody Citizen,
Exh. A. Claimant’s second monthly bill, dated July 7, 2014, reflected data overage
charges in the amount of $300.00. Id.
On June 30, 2014, Claimant contacted Verizon Wireless to discuss Claimant’s
June monthly bill for the first time. See Exhibit 12. During the call, Claimant did not
request a service option for hearing impaired customers. Id. Claimant instead
requested that Verizon Wireless disconnect her account. Id. at 11, 22. A Verizon
Wireless representative advised Claimant that she would incur an early termination
fee if she disconnected her account, but Claimant disconnected her account in any
event. Id. at 11. Claimant also directed Verizon Wireless to send her account to
collections. Id.
In fact, Claimant’s TTY Relay transcript shows that every Verizon Wireless
representative that spoke with Claimant on June 30th was respectful, and courteously
assisted Claimant by: 3
•! Attempting to explain to Claimant that her “Jetpack” states how much data
Claimant used. See Exhibit 1 at Page 7 (“on the jetpack it does tell you how
much you’ve used”).
2 All quotations from TTY Relay transcripts are being reproduced as transcribed by the TTY Relay
specialist. Accordingly, they may not accurately reflect what was said by a Verizon Wireless
representative, or the manner in which it was said.
3 If anyone acted inappropriately during the call on June 30, 2014, it was Claimant, who used
profanity while discussing Verizon Wireless’s data plan options, “since you guys don’t have a
f-cking unlimited data.” Exhibit 1 at 17.
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
•! Attempting to break Claimant’s balance into smaller monthly payments. See
Exhibit 1 at Page 8 (“our financial services can break . . . that up into
monthly payments . . .”).
•! Attempting to temporarily suspend Claimant’s account while she catches up
on payments so she does not incur an early termination fee. See Exhibit 1 at
Page 10 (“we can temporarily suspend your line while you get caught up
with this month. . .”)
•! Attempting to help Claimant learn how to better use her monthly data
allowance. See Exhibit 1 at Page 10 (“next we can work up some ways to
better use the data . . .”).
•! Attempting to help Claimant so the account does not go to collections. See
Exhibit 1 at Page 10 (“we can . . . break up the payments so that you don’t
go to collections . . .”).
•! Attempting to work with Claimant on her balance to avoid damage to her
credit. See Exhibit 1 at Page 10 (“I think that that would be the best to
protect your credit and your ability to use the internet in the future . . .”).
Nevertheless, that same day, Claimant filed the instant action against Verizon
Wireless in the Los Angeles Superior Court.4 Claimant contends that Verizon
Wireless’s legal department contacted her less than 30 days after she filed the
complaint, and offered to help her remove the overage charges from her account.5 See
First Amended Complaint. Claimant, however, has steadfastly refused the account
credit.
Now, Claimant attempts to manufacture additional claims against Verizon
4 Verizon Wireless subsequently removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
5 The total outstanding balance on Claimant’s account is $800.30. Claimant has refused multiple
offers from Verizon Wireless’s in-house and outside counsel to remove the balance from her
account, and she now demands $1,000,000.
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Wireless based on two calls she made to Verizon Wireless after she filed this action.
In the first call, apparently on May 21, 2015, Claimant contends that Verizon Wireless
intentionally hung up on Claimant. However, neither Verizon Wireless’s account
notes, nor Claimant’s TTY Relay transcript (Exhibit 1), reflect that any Verizon
Wireless representative hung up on Claimant. Instead, as noted by the TTY Relay
operator, it was unclear why the call disconnected: “LINE DISCONNECTED NOT
SURE IF THEY HUNG UP OR IF THERE WAS A TECHNICAL PROBLEM ON
THE LIEN [sic].”6 See Exhibit 2. In addition, Verizon Wireless’s internal account
notes do not reflect that the call concluded in a hang up. Citizen Declaration, ¶ 7.
Instead, what is clear is that, like the prior representatives that spoke with Claimant,
the representatives on the May 21st call also tried to help address Claimant’s billing
inquiry. Even the TTY Relay operator noted, “(SOUNDS HELPFUL),” as a Verizon
Wireless representative attempted to address Claimant’s concern. Id. at p. 2.
In the second call at issue, Claimant contends Verizon Wireless representatives
were laughing at Claimant. However, Claimant’s TTY Relay transcript for this call
does not support this assertion. Instead, at the outset, the TTY Relay operator noted
that there was background noise overheard in the call center, presumably because
there were multiple representatives speaking with various Verizon Wireless
customers. In that regard, the TTY Relay operator noted, “(SOUNDS BUSY)
(PEOPLE TALKING IN BACKGROUND) . . .” Exhibit 3. Subsequently, the TTY
Relay operator noted, “(PEOPLE TALKING IN BACKGROUND) (LAUGHTER IN
BACKGROUND) . . .” Id. There is absolutely no indication, however, that any of
the background noise related to Claimant’s inquiry, or that the laughter in the
background was directed at Claimant. In fact, a review of Claimant’s TTY Relay
6 Moreover, any indication in the TTY Relay transcript that the the automated system “hung up”
resulted because Claimant did not provide her phone number, as prompted. See, e.g., Exhibit 2 at p.
1 (“Operator: . . . (VERIZON WIRELESS FINANCIAL SERVICES) (ASKING FOR PHONE
number UR CALLING about) . . . You: see if live person will pick up . . .”). Once Claimant
correctly entered her phone number, and properly followed the prompts, she was connected with a
representative.
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
transcript shows that the Verizon Wireless representative was again respectful and
courteous to Claimant – the representative even attempted to provide Claimant with a
credit towards her outstanding balance. Id.
Moreover, to the extent Claimant alleges unspecified misrepresentations made
by Verizon Wireless, these allegations have been addressed – and disposed of – before
this matter was compelled to arbitration. 7
Although the evidence reflects that Verizon Wireless’s representatives only
sought to assist Claimant with her billing inquiry, Claimant now seeks $1,000,000
from Verizon Wireless, and in Section 4 of the arbitration demand, which prompted
Claimant to state any other relief she sought, Claimant wrote: “kicking their ()()”. See
Demand for Arbitration.
III.! LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law where there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact affecting a claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. As the
moving party, a respondent may discharge its burden by “‘showing’ – that is, pointing
out to the district court – that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party’s case.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986);
accord Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Celotex).
To survive this motion for summary judgment, a claimant “must present
7 As noted by United States District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell in the Order compelling
arbitration, Claimant cannot establish that Verizon Wireless, or its representatives, made any
misrepresentations to Claimant at the time she activated her account. Indeed, Judge O’Connell
determined that:
[Claimant] claims that she told a Verizon employee she used the internet fifteen hours a
day, and that the employee then recommended the 10GB plan. She further claims that the
employee did not offer her a plan with more data because the larger plans would be too
expensive, which would have deterred [Claimant] from activating an account. Yet
[Claimant] has failed to explain why this communication was a misrepresentation, and
what about the employee’s statement was false or misleading. Nor has she described
where or when this conversation occurred. [Claimant] has thus failed to comply with the
heightened pleading requirements necessary to allege a misrepresentation claim.
Exhibit 4 (citations omitted).
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
competent evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact.” See Federal
Election Comm’n v. Toledano, 317 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2002). The materiality of a
fact is determined by the underlying substantive law. See State of Calif., on Behalf of
Calif. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 782 (9th Cir.
1998). “In short, ‘summary judgment is appropriate if, on the record as a whole, a
rational trier of fact could not find for the non-moving party.’” Durkin v. Equifax
Check Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming summary judgment
on FDCPA claims).8
IV.! LEGAL ARGUMENT
A.! Claimant Cannot Establish A Violation Of The ADA As A Matter Of Law
Claimant alleges that Verizon Wireless violated the ADA because Verizon
Wireless was “being cruel to [her] while [she] was using TTY Relay to call Customer
Service.” See Claimant’s Demand for Arbitration, Section 2. Claimant does not
designate any specific provisions that she believes were violated. However, Claimant
presumably contends that Verizon Wireless violated Sections 225 and 255 of the
ADA. See generally 47 U.S.C. §§ 225(c) and 255(c). Claimant’s ADA claim fails as
a matter of law, however, because cruel and rude behavior does not violate the ADA.
Moreover, there is no evidence supporting Claimant’s assertion that Verizon Wireless
was cruel or lost patience with Claimant, much less that Verizon Wireless violated the
ADA.
i.! Verizon Wireless Did Not Violate Section 255(c) Of The ADA
Section 255(c) of the ADA states: “A provider of telecommunications service
shall ensure that the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
if readily achievable.” 47 U.S.C. § 255(c); see also 47 C.F.R. 6.5(b)(1). Any claim
under Section 255 fails at the threshold, however, because there is no private right of
8 Verizon Wireless brings this Motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, Claimant’s Demand for Arbitration cannot even survive the more permissive standard
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
action to enforce Section 255. 47 U.S.C. § 255(f) (“No additional private rights
authorized. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any private right
of action to enforce any requirement of this section or any regulation thereunder.
The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any complaint under
this section.”) (emphasis added).
Further, even assuming arguendo that Claimant could bring a cause of action
under Section 255(c), there is no evidence that Verizon Wireless failed to “ensure that
the service is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Rather,
Verizon Wireless clearly provided data service to Claimant – she used over double the
amount of her monthly plan. See Citizen Decl., Ex. A.
Moreover, Claimant’s own evidence unequivocally establishes that Verizon
Wireless made customer support available to Claimant through the TTY Relay service
-- Claimant possesses the transcripts for these calls. See Exhibits 1-3. Accordingly,
there can be no liability under Section 255(c).
ii.! Verizon Wireless Did Not Violate Section 225(c) Of The ADA
Section 225(c) of the ADA states: “Each common carrier providing telephone
voice transmission services shall, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this section [enacted July 26, 1990], provide in compliance with the regulations
prescribed under this section, throughout the area in which it offers service,
telecommunications relay services. . .”
Here, again, it is undisputed that Verizon Wireless provided customer service
using telecommunications relay service. Claimant herself has transcripts of these
calls. Accordingly, Claimant’s Section 225(c) claim fails as a matter of law.
To the extent Claimant alleges that Verizon Wireless was rude, or that Verizon
Wireless hung-up on her, these allegations are not only legally inconsequential, but
are false. In fact, Verizon Wireless representatives repeatedly offered to assist
Claimant. Claimant, however, responded that she did not want to pay the account
balance: “since you guys don’t have a f-cking unlimited data.” Exhibit 1 at 17. As for
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Claimant’s allegations that Verizon Wireless hung up on her, Claimant’s own
evidence does not substantiate this allegation. Exhibit 2.
Accordingly, Claimant cannot establish a violation of Section 225(c) of the
ADA.
B.! Claimant Cannot Establish A “Tort” Cause of Action Against Verizon
Wireless
Claimant apparently abandoned the “tort” cause of action in her First Amended
Complaint. However, to the extent Claimant still attempts to allege a claim for “tort,”
that effort also fails. To prevail on an intentional tort claim, Claimant must establish
that (1) Verizon Wireless intentionally engaged in wrongful conduct, (2) Verizon
Wireless’s conduct caused damage to Claimant, and (3) Claimant’s damages. To
establish a negligence claim, Claimant must prove that (1) Verizon Wireless owed
Claimant a duty of care, (2) Verizon Wireless breached that duty, (3) Verizon
Wireless’s breach of that duty caused damage to Claimant, and (4) Claimant’s
damages. Premo v. Grigg, 237 Cal. App. 2d 192, 195 (1965). The threshold question
in a negligence action is whether a duty exists. “[A]bsent a duty, the defendant’s care,
or lack of care, is irrelevant.” Software Design & Application, Ltd. v. Hoefer & Arnett,
Inc., 49 Cal. App. 4th 472, 481 (1996).
Here, under either theory, Claimant cannot prevail. Indeed, Claimant does not
allege a single element of an intentional tort claim, much less identify the tort upon
which she is basing her claim. At best, Claimant alleges that Verizon Wireless was
rude and impatient, and on one occasion, Claimant’s call with Verizon Wireless was
disconnected. Even if all of these allegations are true, however, Claimant cannot
establish any tortious conduct.
Moreover, the evidence contradicts Claimant’s allegations in any event. Indeed,
the record is clear that Verizon Wireless’s representatives were courteous to Claimant,
and went out of their way to assist Claimant with her inquiry. See Exhibits 1-3.
Accordingly, Claimant’s “tort” claim, to the extent she alleges one, fails as a
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
matter of law.
C.! Claimant Cannot Establish A Credit Reporting Violation
Although Claimant does not expressly allege a claim based on Verizon
Wireless’s reporting of the subject account, she makes a passing reference to her
credit report in the Demand for Arbitration. See, e.g., Demand for Arbitration (“All I
wanted was to get my $800 off, not ruining my credit report.”). To the extent
Claimant attempts to allege any claim based on Verizon Wireless’ credit reporting,
such a claim would fail at the threshold.
The credit reporting conduct of a furnisher of information (such as Verizon
Wireless) is governed by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), codified at
15 U.S.C. section 1692s-2. The FCRA, however, does not provide a private right of
action for erroneously reporting credit information. Rather, a creditor only faces
liability if the claimant disputed inaccurate reporting with a credit reporting agency
(“CRA”), and the creditor failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the
claimant’s dispute after receiving a notice of dispute directly from a CRA. See 15
U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b)(1)(B); Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.2d 1057,
1060 (9th Cir. 2002). Once a dispute is received by the creditor from a CRA, and only
then, the creditor has a duty to conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed
information, to review the information provided by the CRA, and to report its findings
to the CRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(C); see also Gorman v. Wolpoff &
Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2009) citing 15 U.S.C. §
1681i(a)(2)(A). If the investigation reveals that the information is incomplete,
inaccurate, or unverifiable, the creditor must modify, delete, or permanently block the
reporting of that item of information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(2). In Gorman, the
Ninth Circuit explained the relevant inquiry under Section 1681s-2(b) as follows:
We emphasize that the requirement that furnishers investigate
consumer disputes is procedural. An investigation is not
necessarily unreasonable because it results in a substantive
conclusion unfavorable to the consumer, even if that conclusion
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
turns out to be wrong.
Id. at 1161.
Here, Claimant cannot establish an FCRA violation because Claimant never
disputed the accuracy of Verizon Wireless’s credit reporting to any CRA. Citizen
Decl., ¶ 6. Moreover, Claimant does not dispute the validity of the underlying debt in
any event. Instead, Claimant merely contends that she did not know that she exceeded
her monthly data allotment. Exhibit 1 at p. 7. However, Claimant expressly
instructed Verizon Wireless to send the balance to collections. Id. at p. 8 (“I can’t pay
that $300. I don’t have $300, you guys just have to cancel me and send that money to
collection agency.”). Despite this instruction, Verizon Wireless’s representative
attempted to assist Claimant to avoid collections and any adverse credit reporting. See
id. at Page 10 (“we can temporarily suspend your line while you get caught up with
this month and next we can work up some ways to better use the data and financial
services can break up the payments so that you don’t go to collections . . . I think that
that would be the best to protect your credit . . .”). Nevertheless, Claimant voluntarily
chose to disconnect her account and again instructed Verizon Wireless to send her
balance to collections. Id. at pp. 11-12.
Claimant likewise cannot establish a violation of the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act, which states: “(a) A person shall not furnish
information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting
agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or
inaccurate.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). Here, Claimant does not contend that
Verizon Wireless reported any incomplete or inaccurate information. To the contrary,
Claimant acknowledges the she incurred the debt (even if she did not realize that she
exceeded her monthly data allowance), and she instructed Verizon Wireless to send
the debt to collections. Exhibit 1 at pp. 11-12.
Accordingly, Claimant cannot allege any claim against Verizon Wireless for
YU#|#MOHANDESI#LLP#
633#West#Fifth#Street,#Suite#2800#
Los#Angeles,#CA#90071#