The plaintiff, LR Credit, LLC ("LR Credit"), assignee of Providian National Bank, moves to amend the caption to delete Providian's name, leaving only the identity of the assignee as the named plaintiff. The stated reason is that Providian "....wishes to disassociate itself from this action for public relations and contractual purposes."

The original credit card contract was between the defendant and the Providian National Bank. The action was commenced by service of a summons and complaint. Following the defendant's failure to answer, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant, and now seeks to remove the name of Providian from the judgment, ostensibly due to the potentially negative public relations attendant with the enforcement procedures undertaken by a judgment creditor.

Plaintiff's request is neither to amend a pleading nor substitute a party (CPLR 3025 & 1018). As the assignee of Providian, LR Credit has already brought the action as the successor in interest to Providian, and therefore has not demonstrated a need to amend a pleading, or substitute a party. It merely seeks to delete the name of the assignor from the judgment for publicity reasons. There remains a substantial risk of prejudice to the defendant, should [*2]Providian's name be deleted from the judgment. In the event that the defendant seeks to challenge the judgment or subsequent enforcement procedures, or to obtain further information about the transaction, or review his or her credit history, the defendant may have difficulty identifying the transaction without the name of the original creditor. Additionally, a defendant may ignore papers or statements which come from the assignee or other entities on the assignee's behalf, and which contain no reference to the assignor, Providian. This creates an environment of surprise and guesswork and a maze of paper that would confuse and daunt most consumers. Consequently, to allow such an amendment would be unjust.

The plaintiff fails to give a significantly valid reason why the caption should be amended, other than wishing to do so for contractual and public relations reasons. Credit card companies are in the business of extending credit, and bring lawsuits regularly to collect outstanding balances. It is therefore expected that they would be involved in lawsuits. While an aggrieved party has the right to pursue all appropriate legal remedies, in the case of credit card disputes, public policy offers protection for the consumer. Public policy dictates that at the very least, the consumer must be well informed of its rights and obligations, not only throughout the billing process, but at all stages of litigation, including post judgment enforcement. To permit the plaintiff to eliminate the name of the lender solely to effectuate pristine public relations, falls woefully short of the intention of consumer protection legislation.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim that it seeks the amendment for contractual reasons is vague and without merit. It has not provided the Court with any explanation of its contended "contractual reasons", nor has it offered any proof that its contractual rights are abridged or denied by retaining the current judgment caption.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to amend the caption of the judgment is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Court Attorney to notify both sides of this Decision/Order.

Dated: August 2, 2005

Staten Island, NY HON. PHILIP S. STRANIERE

Judge, Civil Court

A P P E A R A N C E S [*3]