Herrera v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/28/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

ELIZABETH HERRERA,

Case No. 15-cv-04612-BLF

Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
[RE: ECF 30, 31, 32, 33]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Defendants Kelkris Associates, Inc., Stanislaus Credit Control Service, Inc., RCA of Grass

12
13

Valley, Inc., and Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to dismiss Plaintiff’s

14

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated on the record at

15

the hearing on March 17, 2016 and discussed below, the motions are GRANTED WITH LEAVE

16

TO AMEND.

17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiff has filed a form complaint containing boilerplate allegations arising from

19

unspecified inaccuracies in her credit reports. Plaintiff claims that she gave the defendant credit

20

reporting agencies notice of the inaccuracies, but they and the entities that furnished the inaccurate

21

information failed to perform reasonable investigations or correct the inaccuracies. Plaintiff

22

asserts claims under (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2; (2) the

23

California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a); and

24

California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

25

II.

DISCUSSION

26

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the most basic pleading requirements. Federal Rule of

27

Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

28

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil

1

Procedure 12(b)(6) requires that the complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

2

to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

3

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility

4

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that

5

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. As discussed in more detail below,

6

Plaintiff does not identify with any particularity what inaccurate information appeared on the

7

credit reports. Thus the complaint does not contain facts sufficient to put Defendants on notice of

8

the claims against it or to show that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

9

Claim 1 is asserted under the FCRA, which is titled “Responsibilities of furnishers of
information to consumer reporting agencies.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. Section 1681s-2(a) does not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

provide a private right of action, so to the extent that Plaintiff asserts a claim under that section, it

12

is subject to dismissal. See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059-60

13

(9th Cir. 2002). The FCRA does provide a private right of action under § 1681s-2(b) against a

14

person who furnishes information to a credit reporting agency but fails to take certain steps when

15

informed of a dispute regarding the completeness or accuracy of such information. See id. at

16

1060; Littleton v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 15-cv-01619-EJD, 2015 WL 4638308, at *1 (N.D.

17

Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). A plaintiff asserting a claim under § 1681s-2(b) must allege what information

18

the defendant furnished to the credit reporting agency and why that information was incomplete or

19

inaccurate. See Littleton, 2015 WL 4638308, at *2. Plaintiff has not alleged what information

20

Defendants communicated to the defendant credit reporting agencies or why such information was

21

incomplete or inaccurate.

22

Claim 2 is asserted under § 1785.25(a) of the CCRA, which provides that “[a] person shall

23

not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting

24

agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.” Cal.

25

Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). Plaintiff has not alleged what information Defendants furnished to the

26

defendant credit reporting agencies or that Defendants knew or should have known the

27

information was incomplete or inaccurate.

28

Claim 3 is asserted under the UCL. Plaintiff’s counsel stated at the hearing that Plaintiff
2

1

wishes to dismiss Claim 3 voluntarily.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED as to all claims with leave to

2
3
4
5

amend as to Claims 1 and 2.
III.

ORDER
(1)

LEAVE TO AMEND as to Claims 1 and 2;

6
7

(2)

10

Leave to amend is limited to the claims addressed in this order; Plaintiff may not
add additional claims or parties without express leave of the Court; and

8
9

Defendants’ motions to dismiss, ECF 30, 31, 32, 33, are GRANTED WITH

(3)

As stated on the record at the hearing on March 17, 2016, any amended pleading
shall be filed on or before March 31, 2016.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: March 28, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3