Hughes v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING 20 DEFENDANT IQ DATA INTERNATIONAL'S MOTION 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
DAZZA HUGHES,

6

Case No. 15-cv-05118-BLF

Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,

9

Defendants.

10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT IQ
DATA INTERNATIONAL’S MOTION
TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
[RE: ECF 20]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Defendant IQ Data International, Inc. (“IQ Data”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint

12
13

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 For the reasons stated on the record at the

14

hearing on March 17, 2016 and discussed below, the motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO

15

AMEND.
I.

16

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.
II.

24

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

25
26
27
28

1

At hearing, counsel for IQ Data also asserted that venue is improper. While IQ Data may
challenge venue in an appropriate motion, the issue of venue is not before the Court at this time
and it is not addressed in this order.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

claims against it or to show that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Claim 1 is asserted under the FCRA, which is titled “Responsibilities of furnishers of

12

information to consumer reporting agencies.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2. Section 1681s-2(a) does not

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

incomplete or inaccurate.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

defendant credit reporting agencies or that IQ Data knew or should have known the information
2

1

was incomplete or inaccurate.
Claim 3 is asserted under the UCL. Plaintiff’s counsel stated at the hearing that Plaintiff

2
3

wishes to dismiss Claim 3 voluntarily.
Accordingly, IQ Data’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to all claims with leave to

4
5
6
7

amend as to Claims 1 and 2.
III.

ORDER
(1)

Claims 1 and 2;

8
9

(2)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

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

10
11

IQ Data’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to

(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.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3