top of page

Located in Las Vegas, Nevada

Over 26 years handling all types of auto accident & injury cases.

Member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates

We team up with co-counsel for both in-state and out-of-state actions and class action suits


On July 11, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the question of what constituted a reasonable investigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), was a question for the jury, as well as the question of punitive damages, in light of the facts of this case, which is, that the junk debt buyer, MCM, did not examine any "account-level documentation."

Attorney Craig Perry filed briefs last year. On May 17, 2016, Mr. Perry appeared for oral argument before the 11th Circuit of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia.

"This is a big win for consumers who dispute items on their report that aren't theirs. Junk debt buyers who report debts to the consumer reporting agencies need to conduct a reasonable re-investigation when a consumer complains, not just automatically verify, but actually review account-level documentation to see if a mistake has been made. If they can't verify the debt, their duty is to say so to the consumer reporting agencies, so it can be removed. That is simply the right thing to do."

Read the Opinion

Listen to the oral argument*

Hinkle v Midland Oral Argument - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
00:00 / 00:00

*The original recording was edited down to focus on that portion of the  oral argument relating primarily to the investigation standard that should be applied pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). The court held that in this case, "reasonableness" and "wilfulness" were questions for the jury, and reversed summary judgment on those issues.


Success! Message received.

bottom of page