Raina Gustafson v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. et al
Filing
20
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT SYSTEMS & SERVICES TECHNOLOGIES, INC.S MOTION TO DISMISS 14 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART SSTs Motion to Dismiss as enumerated above. Since the Court denies leave to amend on the grounds for which it grants SSTs Motion, SST shall file its answer to the Complaint within 14 days. (lc). Modified on 5/21/2014 .(lc).
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
United States District Court
Central District of California
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
Case No. 2:14-cv-01453-ODW(Ex)
RAINA GUSTAFSON,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
v.
14
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
15
SOLUTIONS INC.; SYSTEMS &
SYSTEMS & SERVICES
16
SERVICES TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION
17
HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL
TO DISMISS [14]
18
ASSOCIATION; DOES 1–10, inclusive,
19
20
Defendants.
I.
INTRODUCTION
21
Plaintiff Raina Gustafson alleges that Defendant Systems & Services
22
Technologies, Inc. (“SST”) violated myriad federal and state debt-collection laws by
23
allegedly “double reporting” a debt.
24
reported the same $705 debt twice, though under different names and with different
25
account numbers, and failed to accurately conduct an investigation after receiving
26
dispute notice from her and Defendant Experian Information Solutions Inc. Various
27
federal-law provisions limit her ability to privately enforce her claims and preempt
28
portions of her state-law claims. But the Court finds that she has adequately pleaded
Gustafson contends that SST inaccurately
1
the remainder of her claims. The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
2
IN PART SST’s Motion to Dismiss.1 (ECF No. 14.)
3
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4
SST is a loan servicing and payment processing company, which reports
5
delinquent debts to credit bureaus and is a “furnisher” under the federal Fair Credit
6
Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681–81x. (Compl. ¶ 2.)
7
On February 8, 2012, Gustafson obtained a copy of her Experian credit report
8
and discovered two entries for an SST account. (Id. ¶ 8.) The first account read
9
“SST/CIGPFICORP, Account #1970xxxxxx; Status: charged off $705; Status Details:
10
this account is scheduled to continue on record until March 2014.” (Id.) The second
11
entry listed “SST/SYNOVUS, Account #403624000702xxx; Status: Closed $705
12
written off.” (Id.)
13
In February 2012, September 2013, October 2013, November 2013, December
14
2013, and January 2014, Gustafson requested that Experian investigate and remove
15
one of the SST accounts that was allegedly being double reported. (Id. ¶ 16.)
16
Gustafson obtained subsequent credit reports on October 22, 2013, and
17
November 11, 2013, and noted the same two SST entries. (Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) The
18
November 2013 report further stated that the credit grantor had verified the accuracy
19
of the entries and would not engage in further investigation of Gustafson’s disputes.
20
(Id. ¶ 11.)
21
On February 26, 2014, Gustafson filed this action against, among others, SST,
22
alleging violations of FCRA; California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
23
Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788–88.3; the federal Fair Debt Collection
24
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–92p; and the California Consumer
25
Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCCRAA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1785.1–85.6. (ECF
26
No. 1.) On April 23, 2014, SST moved to dismiss Gustafson’s Complaint under
27
28
1
After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
2
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 14.) Gustafson timely opposed.
2
(ECF No. 17.) That Motion is now before the Court for decision.
III.
3
LEGAL STANDARD
4
A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable
5
legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable legal
6
theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To
7
survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading
8
requirements of Rule 8(a)(2)—a short and plain statement of the claim. Porter v.
9
Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The factual “allegations must be enough to
10
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
11
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That is, the complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter,
12
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
13
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
14
The determination whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility standard is a
15
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
16
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. A court is generally limited to the
17
pleadings and must construe all “factual allegations set forth in the complaint . . . as
18
true and . . . in the light most favorable” to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d
19
668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). But a court need not blindly accept conclusory allegations,
20
unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden
21
State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
22
As a general rule, a court should freely give leave to amend a complaint that has
23
been dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). But a court may deny leave to amend when
24
“the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged
25
pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well
26
Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
27
1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
28
///
3
IV.
1
DISCUSSION
2
The Court finds that some of Gustafson’s claims are preempted by federal law
3
or limited to government enforcement. But the Court finds that Gustafson properly
4
pleaded the remaining claims.
5
A.
FCRA
6
FCRA prohibits, among other things, “furnishers of information” from
7
providing information to a credit-reporting agency that they know or have to reason to
8
believe is inaccurate about a consumer. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A). If a furnisher
9
receives notice of a consumer dispute from a credit-report agency, FCRA obligates the
10
furnisher to conduct a reasonable investigation of the disputed information. § 1681s-
11
2(b)(1)(A); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir.
12
2009) (interpreting the word “investigation” to mean a “reasonable” investigation).
13
FCRA empowers an individual to bring a private right of action against any
14
“person” who either willfully fails to comply with the Act’s requirements, § 1681n, or
15
who negligently fails to do so, § 1681o. But FCRA expressly limits a private action
16
against a furnisher to only damages arising out of a furnisher’s failure to comply with
17
the investigation requirements triggered upon a credit-reporting-agency dispute notice.
18
§ 1681s-2(c)(1). That is, a consumer has no ability to bring suit against a furnisher for
19
failure to conduct a reasonable investigation when the consumer disputes the
20
information directly with the furnisher. Id. Enforcement of, among others, § 1681s-
21
2(a) is left to federal and state agencies and officials. § 1681s-2(d).
22
SST argues that a consumer has no private right of action against a furnisher of
23
information under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a), because enforcement is limited to
24
government agencies. To the extent that Gustafson alleges a § 1681s-2(b) failure-to-
25
investigate claim, SST asserts that the record is clear that SST promptly investigated
26
Gustafson’s dispute and reported the investigation’s results to the credit-reporting
27
agencies. Finally, SST contends that FCRA empowers CIGPFI as a debt purchasher
28
to separately report its account. SST attached a copy of Plaintiff’s credit report to its
4
1
Motion. SST claims that it reported the Synovus debt as charged-off, whereas it
2
reported the CIGPFI active collection account as delinquent consistent with FCRA.
3
Gustafson does not dispute that a private person may not bring her own claim
4
under § 1681s-2(a). Rather, she contends that she brings her FCRA claim under
5
§ 1681s-2(b) by alleging that SST failed to properly investigate her claim after being
6
informed of the dispute by Experian. Plaintiff also disputes SST’s reliance upon her
7
credit report, arguing that SST failed to properly authenticate it and that the Court may
8
not consider it on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Lastly, Gustafson claims that there is no
9
authority presented that permits a furnisher to double report the same debt in the
10
manner as SST did.
In her Complaint, Gustafson does not actually cite to any particular FCRA
11
12
sections when alleging that SST violated the Act.
But many of her allegations
13
bespeak a violation of § 1681s-2(a) in that SST allegedly provided inaccurate
14
information to the credit-reporting agencies. To the extent that Gustafson attempts to
15
bring these claims, she has no private right of action to enforce them. § 1681s-2(c)(1).
16
Gustafson also alleges that SST “failed to correct the errors [on her credit
17
report] and failed to undertake sufficient investigation upon being notified of the
18
errors [by Experian].” (Compl. ¶ 18.) This allegation makes out a § 1681s-2(b)
19
claim, which is subject to private enforcement by Gustafson.
20
A host of problems plague SST’s arguments that the record purportedly
21
establishes that SST properly investigated the dispute. First, the Court must accept
22
Gustafson’s factual allegations as true at this stage—including that SST failed to
23
investigate the dispute. SST may not turn this Motion to Dismiss into a mini-trial of
24
Gustafson’s FCRA claim by arguing that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are “untrue.”
Second, even if the Court may consider Gustafson’s credit report under the
25
26
incorporation-by-reference doctrine, SST wholly failed to authenticate it.2
27
2
28
SST
SST also violated Local Rule 5.2-1 by failing to redact what appears to be Gustafson’s home
address. Continued failures to comply with any applicable rules will subject counsel to sanctions
within this Court’s discretion under Local Rule 83-7.
5
1
simply attached the report to its Motion with no accompanying declaration from a
2
person with personal knowledge of its origin and accuracy. The Court thus gives
3
short shrift to the document.
4
Finally, SST misrepresents what the report says, further straining its credibility.
5
SST states, “Here, SST/Synovus reported the debt as charged-off, whereas
6
SST/CICPFI [sic] reports the active collection account as delinquent.” (Mot. 7:2–3.)
7
But in reality, the credit report at Exhibit A establishes the exact opposite, which then
8
does absolutely nothing to bolster SST’s argument that FCRA entitled CIGPFI to
9
report the debt it purchased from Synovus as delinquent. (Mot. Ex. A.)
10
SST correctly points out that the Federal Trade Commission has interpreted
11
FCRA to permit a furnisher to report an account as both charged-off and delinquent if
12
both of those events occur.
13
Commentary on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 55 FR 18804-01, 18818 (May 4,
14
1990). Gustafson maintains that the double entries were not accurate and thus that
15
FCRA does not allow the reporting in the manner done by SST. But any inaccuracy
16
in reporting is not privately actionable per § 1681s-2(c)(1). So even if Gustafson were
17
correct that FCRA does not allow the two tradelines that SST included on her report,
18
she may not maintain her claim for those alleged violations.
Statement of General Policy or Interpretation;
19
The Court therefore GRANTS SST’s Motion WIHTOUT LEAVE TO
20
AMEND with respect to any of Gustafson’s claims for violations of § 1681s-2(a) or
21
for double reporting. The Court DENIES the Motion on all other FCRA grounds,
22
including violation of § 1681s-2(b).
23
B.
FDCPA
Congress enacted the FDCPA to eliminate abusive debt collection practices,
24
25
including the harassment and abuse of consumers.
26
effectuate this purpose, the Act prohibits a ‘debt collector’ from making false or
27
misleading representations and from engaging in various abusive and unfair
28
///
6
15 U.S.C. § 1692(e).
“To
1
practices.” Izenberg v. ETS Servs., LLC, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1198 (C.D. Cal.
2
2008); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692(d)–(f).
3
Gustafson alleges that SST violated three different FDCPA provisions:
4
§§ 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f. (Compl. ¶ 25(a)–(c).) Section 1692d prohibits a debt
5
collector from engaging in “any conduct the natural consequence of which is to
6
harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”
7
Neither may a debt collector “use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or
8
means in connection with the collection of any debt,” such as falsely representing the
9
character or legal status of the debt or threatening to take an action that cannot be
10
legally done.
§ 1692e.
Further, the FDCPA proscribes the use of “unfair or
11
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt,” including collecting
12
any amount not permitted by law. § 1692f.
13
Citing to Kohut v. Trans Union LLC, No. 04 C 2854, 2004 WL 1882239 (N.D.
14
Ill. Aug. 11, 2004), SST argues that “it is not ‘false, deceptive, or misleading’ to
15
report that a consumer failed to pay a debt after it went to collection when that
16
consumer also failed to pay the debt before it went to collection.” Id. at *2. SST thus
17
recapitulates its argument that double reporting—such as the two tradelines for
18
SST/Synovus and SST/CIGPFI—is not actionable under the FDCPA.
19
But Gustafson distinguishes Kohut, pointing out that unlike in that case, the
20
parties here dispute whether the tradelines are accurate in the first place. Gustafson
21
also cites her own case which established that a furnisher double reporting the same
22
debt could be actionable under the FDCPA. See Morris v. Risk Mgmt. Alternatives,
23
Inc., 203 F.R.D. 336, 339 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (finding only that double reporting created a
24
common legal question sufficient for class certification).
25
SST’s reliance on Kohut is misplaced. In that case, the court specifically noted
26
that “the parties agree[d] that [the furnisher’s] report was accurate.”
2004 WL
27
1882239, at *2.
28
accurate. If she is correct that the double entries are not accurate, then that reporting
But here, Gustafson disputes whether the two tradelines were
7
1
would constitute a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation” actionable under
2
the FDCPA. See § 1692e. SST also does not dispute Gustafson’s §§ 1692d and 1692f
3
allegations. The Court accordingly DENIES SST’s Motion on all FDCPA grounds.
4
C.
RFDCPA
5
The California Legislature explicitly incorporated the FDCPA’s provisions into
6
the RFDCPA, including the proscriptions in §§ 1692d–f. Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17.
7
SST simply reiterates its FDCPA arguments with respect to Gustafson’s RFDCPA
8
claim. Since the Court denied SST’s Motion with respect to the federal claim, the
9
Court similarly DENIES SST’s Motion on all RFDCPA grounds.
10
D.
CCCRAA
11
Gustafson also alleges that SST violated the CCCRAA. The Act provides that a
12
“person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any
13
consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information
14
is incomplete or inaccurate.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). This section’s commands
15
are “nearly identical” to those in § 1681s-2(a) of FCRA. Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1172.
16
While FCRA expressly preempts any state requirements or prohibitions with
17
respect to the subject matter regulated under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a), Congress
18
specifically exempted California Civil Code section 1785.25(a) from preemption.
19
This exclusion works a strange result. A plaintiff may not bring a private action to
20
enforce violations relating to inaccurate information under FCRA, but she may bring
21
one on the same basis under the CCCRAA. Equally as strange, while a plaintiff may
22
bring a failure-to-investigate claim under FCRA, Congress did not exempt
23
CCCRAA’s failure-to-investigate provision from preemption. Carvalho v. Equifax
24
Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 889 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that FCRA preempts
25
section 1785.25(f) relating to failure to investigate upon receipt of dispute notice from
26
a credit-reporting agency).
27
SST argues that Gustafson’s CCCRAA claim fails with her FCRA claim and
28
that the “record” contradicts her failure-to-investigate claim. SST also points out that
8
1
FCRA preempts CCCRAA’s attempt to regulate failures to investigate.
But
2
Gustafson contends that her CCRAA claims relies upon section 1785.25(a), which
3
Congress saved from the preemption chopping block.
4
To the extent that Gustafson brings a failure-to-investigate claim under the
5
CCCRAA, FCRA preempts that claim. The Court thus GRANTS SST’s Motion on
6
that ground WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. But Gustafson’s litany of false-
7
information allegations survives FCRA preemption and is actionable under
8
section 1785.25(a). The Court accordingly DENIES the Motion on this basis.
V.
9
CONCLUSION
10
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES
11
IN PART SST’s Motion to Dismiss as enumerated above. (ECF No. 14.) Since the
12
Court denies leave to amend on the grounds for which it grants SST’s Motion, SST
13
shall file its answer to the Complaint within 14 days.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
May 21, 2014
17
18
19
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?