that might merit such pejorative labels as those employed in
Complaint 916, 28 U.S.C. §1927 holds lawyers responsible for
their continuation of litigation “unreasonably and vexatiously”
under appropriate circumstances.

This Court accordingly orders Bray's counsel to file a
written statement in this Court's chambers on or before
November 27, 2002 (with a copy of course transmitted to each
defense counsel) stating the basis on which the continuation of
this litigation is appropriate. No response is called for by
either defense counsel, and if the result has been other than a
voluntary dismissal by plaintiff's counsel the subject will be

discussed at the previously-scheduled December 9 status hearing.

Ca Man Don ther

Milton I, Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: November 18, 2002


FO ee

Mite Order Ponsn Biti97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton 1. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 6468 DATE 11/18/2002
CASE David Bray vs. Experian Credit Solutions, et al
TITLE

{in the following box (x) indicate the party filing the mouion, ¢.z., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintitY, and (b) state briefly the nature:
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.)

(2) QO Brief in support of motion duc __

3) a Answer brief to mation due___. Reply to answer brief due, ___

(4) Q Ruling/Hearingon_ ss setfor at.

(5) Q Status hearing|held/continued to] [sct for/re-sct for]on __—_set for, at

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-sct for]on sel for att
(7) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for|on ___-_ at ___.

(8) qa (Bench/Jury triaf] [Hearing] hefd/continued to at__

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to{

OFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.) COFRCP41(s)\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

qo (Other docket entry) Enter Memorandum Order. This Court accordingly orders Bray’s counsel to
file a written statement in this Court’s chambers on or before November 27, 2002 stating the basis on
which the continuation of this litigation is appropriate.

ai o@f {For further detai! sec order attached (o the original minute order.}

Docdinent
Number

No notices required, advised in upen court,

No notices required.

number of nok

NOV. 2.02002

Y | Notices mailed by judge's sta.

Notified counsel by Lelephone,

Dockeling to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. 44009 Laisig Sn
Jt,
Copy to judge/magisteate judge. MYDD
th £ nasaem
courtroum Wd 6 { AGN 20 sive mail notice
SN deputy's oe
initials OT G3 aa sw
Hide reesived in
central Clerk's Office rin ep iin



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BASTERN DIVISION DOCKETED

DAVID BRAY, NOV 2 0 2002

)

)
Plaintiff, )

)
v. ) No. 02 C 6468
}
EXPERIAN CREDIT SOLUTIONS, et al., )
)
)

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM QRDER

In response to this Court's request made during the
October 30, 2002 status hearing in this Fair Credit Reporting Act
lawsuit, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian,” sued
as “Experian Credit Solutions”) and CBC Credit Services (“CBC”)
have submitted information as to their respective reinvestiga-
tions of the one disputed account that still appears as an
adverse item on the consumer disclosure report of plaintiff David
Bray (“Bray”). Although this matter is not set for a next status
hearing until December 9, the nature of those responses calls for
the issuance of this memorandum order now.

In brief, each defendant discloses reasonable investigative
efforts as to each problem that originally showed up on Bray's
credit reports. In every instance that the further investigation
either (1) confirmed the inaccuracy of the originally reported
information or (2) left any question in that respect, each
defendant deleted the inaccurate or questionable item.

Thus only one item is in issue here: Bray's assertedly


delinquent child support obligations of $20,000, as reported by
the Santa Clara County Child Support Enforcement Agency. Each
defendant provided that agency with identifying information on an
appropriate consumer dispute verification form, as well as the
documentation that Bray had provided to challenge the existence
of the delinquency, And in each instance the Enforcement Agency
reverified the obligation that is assertedly owed by Bray.’

It may well be that when this lawsuit was first filed on
September 11, 2002, Bray and his counsel believed that he had a
legitimate claim (a matter that this Court need not decide at
this point), or that they even believed that defendants
“deliberately, willfully, intentionally, recklessly and
negligently repeatedly failed to perform reasonable
reinvestigations” (Complaint §16). But what matters now is that
this Court can frankly perceive no predicate for the continuation
of this lawsuit in the face of what the parties’ submissions have

revealed. In that regard, when it comes to considering conduct

1 It must be noted that the evidence supplied by Bray to
support the proposed elimination of that item wag an October 31,
1986 order dismissing the then-existing Complaint for Support.
But what the Enforcement Agency's October 28, 2002 response to
the request for verification said was this:

This acet is correct as reported. Thia is back support
owed to Santa Clara County. Last pymt recv'd 12-01.
All children emancipated.

In that respect, see Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280,
285 (7 Cir, 1994).