Mendez, a George W. Bush appointee, said that the court does not have jurisdiction over Trumark because the credit union is headquartered and organized in Pennsylvania and has never maintained a presence in California. Mendez said evidence presented by Trumark showed that the credit union never expressly aimed any conduct or conducted any business in the state.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Court finds that Trumark did not expressly aim its conduct at California by, for example, sending correspondence to plaintiff at a California address,\u201d he said in his ruling, released Thursday. \u201cPlaintiff\u2019s argument is that Trumark should have known of plaintiff\u2019s California connections when it authorized the accounts at issue. This falls short of meeting the purposeful direction standard.\u201d<\/p>\n
Plaintiff Kristen Gohn had her identity stolen in 2021 after discovering there were multiple credit accounts and inquiries falsely associated with the name \u201cKristen Roberson\u201d on her credit report. Specifically, she had several credit accounts opened at Trumark under the Roberson name, using a false Pennsylvania address and phone number, that had racked up more than $30,000 in debt.<\/p>\n
While Gohn says she never used the surname \u201cRoberson,\u201d it was similar to her legal name, \u201cKristen Rogerson,\u201d which is listed on her credit profile.<\/p>\n
Attempts to challenge the fraudulent activity were fruitless. Gohn attests she sent Trumark and credit reporting agencies a written dispute package including a police report, identity documents and her proof of California residence. Despite this, the agencies determined that the Trumark accounts belonged to her, resulting in the credit union continuing to report the accounts and make collections attempts.<\/p>\n
Gohn sued Trumark in November, claiming<\/a> the credit union violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by ignoring evidence that the accounts were fraudulent and continuing to collect the debt Gohn says she does not owe.<\/p>\n She argued the court had jurisdiction over because Trumark directed conduct at her in California by opening credit accounts using her information despite a \u201cglaring mismatch between the identity in the credit profile and the identity on the applications.\u201d<\/p>\n Gohn also said Trumark reviewed her credit profile before approving the accounts, which \u201cunmistakably identified\u201d her as a California resident with \u201ca longstanding California credit history\u201d and a different name, address and phone number than those used in the applications.<\/p>\n \u201cThese allegations demonstrate that Trumark knowingly directed its conduct at a California consumer by accessing and relying on the plaintiff\u2019s California credit profile while extending credit to a plainly inconsistent identity. Under these circumstances, Trumark cannot plausibly contend that it was unaware that its actions were directed at a California resident or that any resulting harm would be felt in California,\u201d Gohn said in her opposition<\/a> to Trumark\u2019s motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n Mendez dismissed the claims against Trumark without leave to amend and terminated them from the case.<\/p>\n Gohn also named credit reporting agencies Trans Union and Equifax as defendants. On May 11, she notified the court of a settlement with Trans Union and dismissed the claims against them.<\/p>\n Representatives for either party did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n