Del Amora v. Metro Ford Sales and Service, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[t]o hold Metro Ford directly liable for the [employee’s] willful violation of the FCRA, Del Amora must demonstrate that ... Metro Ford was negligent or reckless in allowing the misconduct to occur”
• the defendant auto dealer was hable under § 219[2][d] where the defendant’s employee was able to obtain the plaintiffs credit report under false pretenses because of the employee’s position at the dealership
• the defendant auto dealer was liable under § 219[2][d] where the defendant's employee was able to obtain the plaintiff's credit report under false pretenses because of the employee's position at the dealership
• A complaint alleging wrongdoing by a nonsupervisory employee of defendant and defendant’s violation of federal credit reporting statutes “encompass [ed] the possibility of a theory of vicarious liability,” thereby giving sufficient notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).