Stewart v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING 18 DEFENDANT CAPITAL ONE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/13/2016. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 CYNTHIA STEWART, Case No. 15-cv-04617-BLF Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. 10 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CAPITAL ONE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND [RE: ECF 18] United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Defendant Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Capital One”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s 12 13 complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated on the record at 14 the hearing on January 7, 2016 and discussed below, the motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO 15 AMEND. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff has filed a form complaint containing boilerplate allegations arising from 18 unspecified inaccuracies in her credit reports. Plaintiff claims that she gave the defendant credit 19 reporting agencies notice of the inaccuracies, but they and the entities that furnished the inaccurate 20 information failed to perform reasonable investigations or correct the inaccuracies. Plaintiff 21 asserts claims under (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2; (2) the 22 California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a); and 23 California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the most basic pleading requirements. Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that the complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 27 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil 28 Procedure 12(b)(6) requires that the complaint “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 1 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 2 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility 3 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 4 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. As discussed in more detail below, 5 Plaintiff does not identify with any particularity what inaccurate information appeared on the 6 credit reports. Thus the complaint does not contain facts sufficient to put Capital One on notice of 7 the claims against it or to show that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. 8 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 10 provide a private right of action, so to the extent that Plaintiff asserts a claim under that section, it 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 is subject to dismissal. See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059-60 12 (9th Cir. 2002). The FCRA does provide a private right of action under § 1681s-2(b) against a 13 person who furnishes information to a credit reporting agency but fails to take certain steps when 14 informed of a dispute regarding the completeness or accuracy of such information. See id. at 15 1060; Littleton v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 15-cv-01619-EJD, 2015 WL 4638308, at *1 (N.D. 16 Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). A plaintiff asserting a claim under § 1681s-2(b) must allege what information 17 the defendant furnished to the credit reporting agency and why that information was incomplete or 18 inaccurate. See Littleton, 2015 WL 4638308, at *2. Plaintiff has not alleged what information 19 Capital One communicated to the defendant credit reporting agencies or why such information 20 was incomplete or inaccurate. 21 Claim 2 is asserted under § 1785.25(a) of the CCRA, which provides that “[a] person shall 22 not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting 23 agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.” Cal. 24 Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). Plaintiff has not alleged what information Capital One furnished to the 25 defendant credit reporting agencies or that Capital One knew or should have known the 26 information was incomplete or inaccurate. 27 28 Claim 3 is asserted under the UCL. Plaintiff’s counsel stated at the hearing that Plaintiff wishes to dismiss Claim 3 voluntarily. 2 Accordingly, Capital One’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to all claims with leave to 1 2 3 4 amend as to Claims 1 and 2. III. ORDER (1) Claims 1 and 2; 5 6 (2) 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 7 8 Capital One’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to (3) Any amended pleading shall be filed on or before February 3, 2016. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: January 13, 2016 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 15 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?