15 U.S.C. § 1681p

Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

An action to enforce any liability created under this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court, without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, not later than the earlier of—(1) 2 years after the date of discovery by the plaintiff of the violation that is the basis for such liability; or(2) 5 years after the date on which the violation that is the basis for such liability occurs.(Pub. L. 90–321, title VI, § 618, as added Pub. L. 91–508, title VI, § 601, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1134; amended Pub. L. 108–159, title I, § 156, Dec. 4, 2003, 117 Stat. 1968.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2003—Pub. L. 108–159 reenacted section catchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “An action to enforce any liability created under this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has materially and willfully misrepresented any information required under this subchapter to be disclosed to an individual and the information so misrepresented is material to the establishment of the defendant’s liability to that individual under this subchapter, the action may be brought at any time within two years after discovery by the individual of the misrepresentation.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2003 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–159 subject to joint regulations establishing effective dates as prescribed by Federal Reserve Board and Federal Trade Commission, except as otherwise provided, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–159, set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of one hundred and eighty days following Oct. 26, 1970, see section 504(d) of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 91–508, set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 369 cases (121 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Santos Ex Rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (3rd Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Santos Ex Rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “at 444 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681p) (1994 ed.) (internal quotation marks omitted).”

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001). · cites it 2× “Today's opinion, in clarifying the meaning of 15 U. S. C. § 1681p, casts the meaning of innumerable other limitation periods in doubt.”

SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017). · cites it 2× “19, 28 (2001) (same with regard to 15 U. S. C. §1681p). And in Petrella, we specifically noted that “we have not passed on the question” whether the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations is governed by such a rule.”

Sarmad Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. The district court dismissed Syed’s action because he failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), not because the claim was time-barred.”

Long v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 903 F.3d 312 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. This Court has jurisdiction to review the District Court's final order under 28 U.”

United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012). · cites it 2× “§ 1346 (a)(2) (no claims in district court “exceeding $10,000 in amount”) with 15 U. S. C. § 1681p (claims may be brought in district court “without regard to the amount in controversy”); compare 28 U.”

Richard Rylewicz, Thomas Cummings & Barbara Cummings v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175 (7th Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “As to Rylewicz’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, Judge Williams held that the two-year statute of limitations contained in 15 U.S.C. § 1681p barred suit against defendants McDonald’s, Turner, Yastrow, Burke, Intertel, and Desnoyers & Associates.”

Shelly Milgram v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 72 F.4th 1212 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. The district court denied Chase’s motion.”

Mangum v. Action Collection Serv., Inc., 575 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “[16] 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (1994). [17] Id. [18] One court of appeals has declined to find that the rule has been undermined at all.”

Abbey v. United States, 745 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “US jurisdiction to identified courts—including “any appropri- ate United States district court,” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p—and hence “‘precisely define[s] the appropriate forum.”

Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 690 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p; see Merck & Co., Inc. v.”

Grigoryan v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (C.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 3× “2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681p; Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.”

Show all 369 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(1) — 14 cases

Waller v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (D. Maryland 2024).

Harris v. HireRight LLC (N.D. Tex. 2024).

Mario Ruiz v. Shamrock Foods Co. (9th Cir. 2020).

Poffenbarger v. Key Bank Corp., Keycorp (D. Alaska 2023).

Poffenbarger v. Equifax (D. Alaska 2023).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(2) — 6 cases

Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 690 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2012). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1681p; see Merck & Co., Inc. v.”

Grigoryan v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (C.D. Cal. 2014). “2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681p; Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.”

Ronald Alexander Garcia Delgado v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2026).

Abdallah v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2021).

Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Snap Fin. (D. Utah 2024).

— 15 U.S.C. § 1681p(l) — 4 cases

Richard Rocheleau v. Elder Living Constr., 814 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2016).

David Mack v. Equable Ascent Fin., LLC, 748 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2014).

Collins v. Experian Credit Reporting Serv., 494 F. Supp. 2d 127 (D. Conn. 2007).

Magallon v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc., 311 F.R.D. 625 (D. Or. 2015).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.