Denison v. CitiFinancial Servicing LLC
Filing
32
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND by Hon. William Alsup [denying 29 Motion for Leave to File]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RONALD C. DENISON JR.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No. C 16-00432 WHA
v.
CITIFINANCIAL SERVICING LLC,
and DOES 1–5,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
Defendants.
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
18
In this action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, plaintiff moves for
19
leave to amend following an order of dismissal. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff’s
20
motion is DENIED.
21
22
STATEMENT
Pro se plaintiff Ronald Denison received a copy of his “tri-merge report” in March 2015,
23
containing his credit report data from Equifax Inc., Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and
24
TransUnion Corp. The information related to Denison’s previous account with Citifinancial
25
Servicing LLC, a subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc., was allegedly incorrect (Compl. ¶ 22). Denison
26
immediately called Experian to dispute the information contained in the report and then sent
27
dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies. Denison also called defendant Citifinancial
28
to dispute the information contained in the report. He sent follow-up dispute letters to Equifax,
1
Experian, TransUnion, and Citifinancial. In May, August, and September 2015, Denison claims
2
he received responses from Citifinancial that failed to prove the existence of the alleged debt.
3
Denison commenced this action in January 2016 alleging violations of the Fair Credit
4
Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California’s Rosenthal Act.
5
Citifinancial promptly moved to dismiss and dismissal was granted. The dismissal order
6
gave Denison the opportunity to file a motion for leave to amend. He filed the instant motion
7
and appended a proposed amended complaint reciting one claim for a violation of the FCRA.
8
This order follows an opening and an opposition brief as well as oral argument. Denison did
9
not file a reply brief.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ANALYSIS
Under Rule 15, leave to amend should be freely given absent undue delay, bad faith or
12
dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, futility of amendment, and prejudice to
13
the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The general rule that parties
14
be allowed to amend does not extend to situations where amendment would be an exercise in
15
futility or where the amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal. Steckman v. Hart
16
Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). “Futility of amendment can, by itself,
17
justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845
18
(9th Cir. 1995). Here, Denison’s proposed amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies
19
of his first complaint. Thus, amendment would be futile.
20
The order dismissing Denison’s complaint made clear that to state a claim against
21
a credit furnisher under the FCRA, he needed to include additional factual allegations.
22
Specifically, Denison needed to plead that: (1) a credit reporting inaccuracy existed on his
23
credit report; (2) he notified the consumer reporting agency that he disputed the reporting as
24
inaccurate; (3) the consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher of the alleged inaccuracy;
25
and (4) the furnisher failed to investigate the inaccuracies or otherwise comply with the
26
requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)–(E). See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg.
27
Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2002).
28
2
1
In his proposed amended complaint, Denison simply recites the fourth element of
2
an FCRA claim and alleges, in a conclusory fashion, that Citifinancial failed to comply.
3
Denison alleges only that “CITI [sic], the furnisher, failed to re-investigate [sic] the
4
inaccuracies or further failed to comply with the requirements in 15 USC [sic]
5
1681s-2(b)(1)(A)–(E)” (Proposed First Amd. Compl. ¶ 22). This wholly conclusory statement
6
is merely a formulaic recitation of the fourth element of an FCRA claim that will not do.
7
Denison’s proposed amended complaint remains insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
8
Thus, amendment would be futile.
CONCLUSION
10
For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
Final judgment will follow.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: June 23, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?