IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GRACE LAWRENCE 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRANS UNION LLC 

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 

Defendant. 

C.A. NO: 02-CV-4440 

TRANS UNION LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S 

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

 Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, states as 

follows in opposition to Plaintiff’s notice of supplemental authority: 

 The majority of Judge Dalzell’s opinion in Crane v. Trans Union is not relevant to the 

instant action. There, the court suggested that a reasonable jury might find that Trans Union’s 

policy not to send the consumer’s dispute materials to the credit furnisher may be considered by 

a jury to be a willful FCRA violation. Crane, p.18. That issue is not germane here, where Trans 

Union’s vendor was required by contract to verify the disputed information, not by the original 

tape source, but by physically going to the courthouse to inspect and review the actual court files. 

 Finally, Crane found that a PA CPL claim may be brought based upon §1681s of the 

FCRA. Trans Union respectfully submits that the holding is contrary to the law and erroneous. 

As set forth instantly, Plaintiff was not a “purchaser,” and binding Third Circuit authority 

mandates that the PA CPL does not apply. Katz v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 972 F.2d 53, 55 (3rd

Cir. 1992); Balderston v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 285 F.3d 238, 242 (3rd Cir. 2002). 

Trans Union’s Reply, pp.2-3. 

 Moreover, the crucial statute of limitations issue here was not considered (or at issue) in 

Crane. Trans Union respectfully submits that even if this Court were to rule that §1681s creates 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 36 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 1 of 3
a private right of action under the PA CPL (a result Trans Union asserts is contrary to existing 

law), the statute of limitations for such claim should be two years as set forth in §1681p of the

FCRA. See Andrews v. TRW, Inc., 122 S.Ct. 441, 534 U.S. 19, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001). To 

hold otherwise would create the unfair result of allowing a consumer to create a PA CPL claim

based solely upon the FCRA, but to jettison §1681p in favor of a limitations period (possibly) 

three times greater found only in a Pennsylvania “catch all” limitations provision. 

Most recently, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated the Supreme Court’s holding 

in Andrews that Congress, not the courts, should extend the statute of limitations in the context 

of a statutory claim which contains a statute of limitations and discovery exception: 

Although the Supreme Court held in TRW Inc. [TRW Inc. v.

Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 151 L. Ed. 2d 339, 122 S. Ct. 441 (2001)]1

that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 

1681 et seq., a claim accrues at the time of injury, not when the 

injury is discovered, the Court noted that the FCRA, a complex

statutory scheme, had a statute of limitations which already

contained a built-in discovery exception for willful 

misrepresentation. TRW Inc., 534 U.S. at 30; see 15 U.S.C. § 

1681p. Thus, according to the Court, since the FCRA “explicitly

delineates the exceptional case in which discovery triggers the 

two-year statute of limitation,” any further extension of the 

FCRA's discovery rule should come from Congress, not the Court. 

TRW Inc., 534 U.S. at 23. By comparison, the FTCA’s [Federal 

Tort Claims Act] statute of limitations contains no such built-in 

exception. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Moreover, liability under the 

FTCA is premised on general principles of the common law of 

torts, and not on a statutorily created right. Skwira, et al. v. United 

States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19005, 25-26* , (decided 

September 15, 2003). 

There, the court of appeals distinguished a tort based FTCA claim from a statutory based 

FCRA claim, and allowed the discovery exception to extend the statute of limitations of that

wrongful death tort claim. 

 

2

1

 Andrews was discussed in Trans Union’s Opening and Reply Brief., pages 10-11 and 2, respectively.

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 36 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 2 of 3
3

 It is respectfully submitted that if the Court finds that §1681s creates a PA CPL claim, the 

entire FCRA statutory scheme should apply, including §1681p. Any other result improperly 

ignores an express Congressional intent to impose a strict two (2) year statute of limitations in 

favor of a vague state law “catch-all” provision. 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 SATZBERG, TRICHON, 

 KOGAN & WERTHEIMER, P.C. 

 ___________________________________ 

 MARK E. KOGAN (10186) 

 BRUCE S. LUCKMAN (38636) 

 TIMOTHY P. CREECH (81728) 

 1818 Market St., 30th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 (215) 575-7600; Fax: (215) 575-7688 

 Counsel for Defendant, 

 Trans Union LLC 

DATED: September 30, 2003 

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 36 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 3 of 3