Venugopal v. Citibank, National Association
Filing
42
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 29 Motion to Dismiss (cwlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2013)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
MARPU VENUGOPAL,
5
No. C 12-2452 CW
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docket No. 29)
6
v.
7
CITIBANK, NA,
8
Defendant.
________________________________/
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendant Citibank, NA moves to dismiss Plaintiff Marpu
11
Venugopal’s first amended complaint (1AC) for failure to state a
12
claim.
13
parties’ submissions and oral argument, the Court denies
14
Defendant’s motion.1
Plaintiff opposes the motion.
After considering the
15
BACKGROUND
16
On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 1AC alleging that
17
Defendant reported inaccurate information about his finances to
18
various credit reporting agencies.
19
Plaintiff claims that Defendant reported an outstanding debt of
20
$197,466 even though that debt had been discharged in a June 2009
21
bankruptcy proceeding.
22
1AC ¶¶ 12-20.
Specifically,
Id.
According to the 1AC, Plaintiff first learned of the
23
inaccuracy on May 2, 2011, when he received a credit report
24
claiming that he still owed an outstanding debt to Defendant.
25
Three days later, on May 5, Plaintiff sent letters to the three
26
The Court indicated at the hearing that it would grant
Defendant’s motion with leave to amend. However, after further
consideration of the parties’ papers, the Court finds that further
amendment is unnecessary.
1
27
28
Id.
1
credit reporting agencies who compiled the report -- Experian,
2
Equifax, and TransUnion -- to dispute the outstanding debt.
3
The letters requested that the agencies conduct “a formal, full,
4
and complete investigation of the information [Defendant]
5
furnished” to the agencies about his finances.
6
Although Plaintiff himself never contacted Defendant to dispute
7
the debt, he alleges that Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion “sent
8
notice of his dispute” to Defendant.
9
Id.
Id. ¶ 16.
Id.
Two weeks after writing to the credit reporting agencies,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff requested new credit reports to confirm that the
11
misreported debt had been removed.
12
four of these credit reports to his 1AC.
13
Plaintiff concedes that three of these four reports show that
14
Defendant properly reported the discharge of his debt to Equifax
15
and TransUnion.2
16
report provides documentation of Defendant’s reporting failure.
17
Id. ¶ 17.
He has attached excerpts from
Id. ¶¶ 17-20, Ex. A.
He asserts, however, that the fourth
That report, issued by Experian on May 17, 2011, displays an
18
outstanding debt of zero dollars and notes that Plaintiff’s
19
previous debt to Defendant was “included in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
20
on June 23, 2009.”
21
report includes a debt timeline indicating that Plaintiff owed
22
Defendant an outstanding debt of $197,466 between May 2009 and
23
March 2011.
24
to his 2009 bankruptcy, Plaintiff alleges that the timeline shows
Id., Ex. B, at 1.
Id. at 2.
But the next page of the
Because the debt timeline does not refer
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff initially argued that two of the four reports contained
evidence of Defendant’s alleged reporting failures but conceded at the
hearing that only one report actually supports his allegations here.
2
2
1
that Defendant “re-reported the disputed overdue payments” after
2
he initiated his dispute with Experian.
Id. ¶ 18.
3
Based on this report, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
4
misreported his debt to Experian in violation of the Fair Credit
5
Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b); the Consumer Credit
6
Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25; and the
7
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
8
¶¶ 24-65.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the
11
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R.
12
Civ. P. 8(a).
13
state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint
14
does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable
15
claim and the grounds on which it rests.
16
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
17
complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court will take all
18
material allegations as true and construe them in the light most
19
favorable to the plaintiff.
20
896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).
21
to legal conclusions; “threadbare recitals of the elements of a
22
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not
23
taken as true.
24
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
25
typically confined to consideration of the allegations in the
26
pleadings, when the complaint is accompanied by attached
27
documents, such documents are deemed part of the complaint and may
28
be considered in evaluating the merits of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
On a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
Bell Atl. Corp. v.
In considering whether the
NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d
However, this principle is inapplicable
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
3
Although the court is
1
Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir.
2
1987).
3
When granting a motion to dismiss, the court is generally
4
required to grant the plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request
5
to amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile.
6
Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911
7
F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990).
8
amendment would be futile, the court examines whether the
9
complaint could be amended to cure the defect requiring dismissal
In determining whether
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
“without contradicting any of the allegations of [the] original
11
complaint.”
12
Cir. 1990).
Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th
13
14
15
DISCUSSION
A.
Violations of the FCRA (First Cause of Action)
The FCRA was enacted “to ensure fair and accurate credit
16
reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect
17
consumer privacy.”
18
52 (2007).
19
sources that provide credit information to CRAs, called
20
‘furnishers’ in the statute.”
21
584 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir. 2009).
22
whenever a credit reporting agency notifies the furnisher that a
23
consumer has disputed information that it provided to the agency.
24
Id.; 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1).
25
must “conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed
26
information,” “review all relevant information provided by the
27
consumer reporting agency” about the dispute, and correct any
28
inaccuracies.
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47,
To achieve this goal, it “imposes some duties on the
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP,
These duties are triggered
Once this occurs, the furnisher
Id.; see also Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg.
4
1
Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2002) (describing furnisher’s
2
duties under the FCRA).
3
of these duties, the consumer who initiated the dispute may sue
4
the furnisher.
5
If the furnisher fails to carry out any
15 U.S.C. § 1681o; Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1059.
Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant breached its FCRA
6
duties by failing to notify Experian that his debt had been
7
discharged in a prior bankruptcy proceeding.
8
allegation is based entirely on the May 17, 2011 credit report
9
attached to Plaintiff’s 1AC.
As noted above, this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The May 17, 2011 credit report issued by Experian expressly
11
states that Plaintiff’s debt to Defendant was “included in [his]
12
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on June 23, 2009.”
13
However, another section of the credit report -- the debt
14
timeline -- indicates that Plaintiff owed a debt to Defendant
15
between May 2009 and March 2011.
16
favorable to Plaintiff, this report supports Plaintiff’s claim
17
that Citibank continued to misreport Plaintiff’s debt history even
18
after Plaintiff initiated his dispute with Experian.
19
he has stated a valid claim under the FCRA.
20
B.
21
1AC, Ex. B, at 1.
Construed in the light most
Accordingly,
Violations of the CCRAA (Second Cause of Action)
The CCRAA prohibits “furnish[ing] information on a specific
22
transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency
23
if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete
24
or inaccurate.”
25
civil liability for a broader range of conduct than the FCRA,
26
Mortimer, 2012 WL 3155563, at *5 (“Unlike the FCRA, the CCRAA
27
includes a private right of action to enforce the prohibition
28
against supplying incomplete or inaccurate consumer credit
Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a).
5
The CCRAA imposes
1
information.”).
2
support his FCRA claim, he has also alleged sufficient facts to
3
support his CCRAA claim.
4
C.
5
Because Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to
Violations of the UCL (Third Cause of Action)
Plaintiff’s UCL claim is based on violations of the FCRA and
6
CCRAA.
7
UCL claim.
Because both of those claims survive, so, too, does his
8
9
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
motion to dismiss (Docket No. 29).
11
within twenty-one days of this order.
12
Defendant must file its answer
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15
Dated:
April 3, 2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?