King v. Corelogic Credco, LLC, No. 3:2018cv01262 - Document 14 (S.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 6/12/2018. (jsmi, ) [Transferred from Virginia Eastern on 6/14/2018.]
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
King v. Corelogic Credco, LLC Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SHAKEENA KING, on behalf ofherselfand a class ofsimilarly situated individuals^ Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17cv761 CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Corelogic Credco, LLC's ("Corelogic") Motion to Transfer Venue to the SouthernDistrict of California(the "Motion to Transfer"). (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff Shakeena King responded, and Corelogic replied. (ECF Nos. 11,12.) Accordingly, the matter is ripe for disposition. The Court dispenses with oral argumentbecause the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argumentwould not aid the decisional process. The Court exercisesjurisdiction pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1331.' For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion to Transfer. I. Factual and Procedural Background A. Factual Background Corelogic is a California limited liability company that conducts business as a consumer reporting agency and "reseller" of consumer reports. (Compl. 19, ECF No. 1.) As a reseller of ' "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. King alleges a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, etseq., (the "FCRA"). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
