California judge dismisses Pennsylvania credit union from identity theft case

(CN) —  A federal judge in California ruled a Pennsylvania credit union won’t have to face claims it violated state and federal fair credit reporting and debt collection acts, finding that the court did not have jurisdiction over a financial institution that operates solely in another state.

Senior U.S. District Judge John Mendez dismissed claims against Trumark Credit Union, which is headquartered in Pennsylvania and operates across the Keystone State. The credit union was accused of opening multiple fraudulent credit accounts in the name of a California woman and attempting to collect debt on those accounts.

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.

“The Court finds that Trumark did not expressly aim its conduct at California by, for example, sending correspondence to plaintiff at a California address,” he said in his ruling, released Thursday. “Plaintiff’s argument is that Trumark should have known of plaintiff’s California connections when it authorized the accounts at issue. This falls short of meeting the purposeful direction standard.”

Plaintiff Kristen Gohn had her identity stolen in 2021 after discovering there were multiple credit accounts and inquiries falsely associated with the name “Kristen Roberson” 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.

While Gohn says she never used the surname “Roberson,” it was similar to her legal name, “Kristen Rogerson,” which is listed on her credit profile.

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.

Gohn sued Trumark in November, claiming 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.

She argued the court had jurisdiction over because Trumark directed conduct at her in California by opening credit accounts using her information despite a “glaring mismatch between the identity in the credit profile and the identity on the applications.”

Gohn also said Trumark reviewed her credit profile before approving the accounts, which “unmistakably identified” her as a California resident with “a longstanding California credit history” and a different name, address and phone number than those used in the applications.

“These allegations demonstrate that Trumark knowingly directed its conduct at a California consumer by accessing and relying on the plaintiff’s 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,” Gohn said in her opposition to Trumark’s motion to dismiss.

Mendez dismissed the claims against Trumark without leave to amend and terminated them from the case.

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.

Representatives for either party did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Follow @mhattridge_