Eller v. Trans Union, LLC
739 F.3d 467
10th Cir.2013Background
- Eller alleges Trans Union issued erroneous credit reports dating to the 1990s, including a Jerry Willard alias, affecting his credit history.
- This FCRA case is Eller’s third against Trans Union; prior settlements occurred in 2001 and 2006 with undisclosed sums.
- The 2009-2012 proceedings pursued negligent and willful FCRA/CCCRA claims; Trans Union asserted counterclaims for frivolousness and settlement-breach.
- The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on willfulness; trial proceeded on negligence and counterclaims, resulting in a jury verdict for Trans Union.
- Eller, pro se at trial, challenged evidentiary rulings, requests for telephonic testimony, and a damages instruction limiting recovery to the NCO Financial account.
- Key pretrial developments included attempts to reassert student-loan claims and contested admissibility of older exhibits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly excluded exhibits | Eller contends the exhibits show longstanding Trans Union errors | Exhibits were irrelevant, authenticating, or cumulative | Exclusion affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether telephonic testimony for two witnesses was properly denied | Good cause supported telephonic testimony | No good cause; standard not met | Denial upheld; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether student-loan claims were improperly excluded from damages | Student-loan issues were tried by implied consent | No implied consent; claims not in pleadings | Not improper; damages limited to NCO Financial account |
Key Cases Cited
- Cassara v. DAC Servs., Inc., 276 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2002) (elements for FCRA reasonable procedures and causation)
- Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72 (6th Cir. 1982) (relevance of prior conduct to reasonableness of procedures)
- Whittington v. Nordam Grp. Inc., 429 F.3d 986 (10th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- Green Cnty. Food Mkt., Inc. v. Bottling Grp., LLC, 371 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2004) (implied consent under Rule 15(b)(2))
- Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, 699 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rule 43(a) telephonic testimony; good cause)