Dyson v. Equifax, Inc. et al
Filing
38
ORDER GRANTING 26 DEFENDANT EQUIFAX'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/27/2017.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2017)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
AQUANETTA DYSON,
7
Case No. 16-cv-03327-BLF
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
EQUIFAX, INC.,
10
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
EQUIFAX’S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
[RE: ECF 26]
12
Plaintiff Aquanetta Dyson sues Equifax, Inc. (“Equifax”) for violations of the Fair Credit
13
14
Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and the California Consumer Credit Reporting
15
Agencies Act (“CCRAA”), California Civil Code § 1785.25(a). Equifax moves for judgment on
16
the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). For reasons discussed below, the
17
motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
I.
18
BACKGROUND1
19
Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on October 30, 2014, and her plan was
20
confirmed on February 23, 2015. Compl. ¶ 5, ECF 1. On February 21, 2016, Plaintiff “ordered a
21
three bureau report from Experian Information Solutions, Inc. to ensure proper reporting by
22
Plaintiff’s creditors.” Id. ¶ 6. She alleges that this report (“February 2016 Credit Report”)
23
included “several tradelines all reporting misleading and inaccurate account information”. Id. ¶ 7.
24
Plaintiff provides specifics as to only one account, alleging that Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
25
(“Nationstar”) reported her account as “charged off, in collection, with a balance in the amount of
26
27
28
1
In reviewing a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court accepts all factual allegations as true and construes
them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925
(9th Cir. 2009).
1
$45,608.00, and a past due balance in the amount of $45,608.00.” Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff does not allege
2
how Nationstar’s reporting was inaccurate. See id.
3
Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate tradelines via certified mail sent to three different credit
4
reporting agencies (“CRAs”), Equifax2, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion,
5
LLC. Id. ¶ 9. Each CRA received Plaintiff’s dispute letter and in turn notified the entities that had
6
furnished the disputed information (“furnishers”). Id. ¶ 10.
Plaintiff ordered a second three bureau report from Experian Information Solutions, Inc. on
7
8
May 14, 2016 (“May 2016 Credit Report”). Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that Equifax “failed to
9
perform its own reasonable investigation and failed to correct the inaccuracies and failed to note
10
that Plaintiff disputed the information.” Id. ¶ 12.
Plaintiff filed this action on June 15, 2016, asserting violations of the FCRA and CCRAA
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
against Equifax and Nationstar. See Compl., ECF 1. Nationstar was dismissed on August 11,
13
2016. Equifax now moves for judgement on the pleadings.
II.
14
LEGAL STANDARD
15
A.
Rule 12(c)
16
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed – but
17
early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “Rule 12(c) is
18
functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6),” and the same legal standard applies to determine whether
19
a claim has been stated under either motion. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
20
1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When determining
21
whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts as true all well-pled factual allegations and
22
construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.,
23
643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the Court need not “accept as true allegations that
24
contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice” or “allegations that are merely conclusory,
25
26
27
28
2
Equifax asserts in a footnote of its motion brief that it is not a CRA as defined by the FCRA, and
therefore that it is not a proper party to this action. Def.’s Mot. at 7. n. 1, ECF 33. Equifax
nonetheless has chosen to “address the merits of Plaintiff’s Complaint as pleaded” in its motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Id. The Court therefore follows suit and treats Equifax as a CRA
for purposes of evaluating its motion.
2
1
unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536
2
F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). While a
3
complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter,
4
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
5
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is
6
facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
7
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
8
III.
DISCUSSION
The Complaint contains two claims, one for violation of the FCRA (Claim 1) and the other
10
for violation of the CCRAA (Claim 2). Although the label of the CCRAA claim indicates that it is
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
asserted against “Defendants,” it is clear from the body of the Complaint that the CCRAA claim is
12
not asserted against Equifax. Compl. ¶¶ 24-32. Accordingly, this order addresses only the FCRA
13
claim.
14
Plaintiff’s FCRA claim against Equifax is subheaded “Failure to Reinvestigate Disputed
15
Information.” Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Plaintiff alleges that after she “disputed the accounts mentioned
16
above” – which the Court takes to mean the “several tradelines all reporting misleading and
17
inaccurate account information” referenced earlier in the Complaint – Equifax was required to
18
conduct a reasonable investigation and to delete any information that was not accurate. Id. ¶¶ 7,
19
19. Plaintiff claims that “Defendants were required to send all relevant information to the
20
furnishers which they did not do.” Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges generally that Equifax “failed to
21
correct the misleading and or inaccurate statements.” Id.
22
Equifax moves for judgment on the pleadings on three grounds. First, Equifax points out
23
that Plaintiff’s FCRA claim against it is asserted under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), which is
24
applicable to furnishers, and not under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, which is applicable to CRAs. Second,
25
Equifax asserts that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that Equifax’s credit reporting was
26
inaccurate. And third, Equifax argues that it is not required to determine the legal status of
27
Plaintiff’s debts.
28
3
1
A.
Code Sections Applicable to CRAs
2
Equifax first argues that Plaintiff has sued it under the wrong provision of the FCRA.
3
“Congress enacted [the] FCRA in 1970 to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote
4
efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr,
5
551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007). To that end, the FCRA imposes specific obligations on CRAs, furnishers,
6
and other categories of persons not at issue here. See generally 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Many of
7
the obligations of CRAs are described in 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. That section provides that if a
8
consumer disputes “the completeness or accuracy of any item of information,” the CRA must
9
“conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate
and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item.” 15 U.S.C. §
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
1681i(a)(1). In addition, the CRA must provide notification of the dispute to the furnisher of the
12
information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2). Such notification by the CRA triggers the furnisher’s
13
obligation to conduct its own investigation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). The FCRA expressly creates
14
a private right of action for willful or negligent noncompliance with these requirements. 15
15
U.S.C. § 1681n & o.
Equifax correctly points out that Plaintiff’s FCRA claim is asserted only under § 1681s-
16
17
2(b), applicable to furnishers, and not under § 1681i, applicable to CRAs. Plaintiff acknowledges
18
in her opposition that the Complaint does not reference § 1681i. Pl.’s Opp. at 4, ECF 34. Plaintiff
19
therefore has failed to allege a viable claim against Equifax under the FCRA.
20
B.
Inaccuracy
21
Equifax argues that even if Plaintiff had alleged her FCRA claim under § 1681i, the claim
22
would fail because Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that Equifax’s credit reporting was
23
inaccurate. The Ninth Circuit has observed that “[a]lthough the FCRA’s reinvestigation provision,
24
15 U.S.C. § 1681i, does not on its face require that an actual inaccuracy exist for a plaintiff to state
25
a claim, many courts, including our own, have imposed such a requirement.” Carvalho v. Equifax
26
Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010).3 “Thus, even if a . . . CRA fails to conduct a
27
3
28
Carvalho involved claims asserted under the CCRAA, not the FCRA. See Carvalho, 629 F.3d at
881. However, in discussing the scope of the CCRAA, the Ninth Circuit drew heavily on cases
4
1
reasonable investigation or otherwise fails to fulfill its obligations under the FCRA, if a plaintiff
2
cannot establish that a credit report contained an actual inaccuracy, then the plaintiff’s claims fail
3
as a matter of law.” Doster v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 16-CV-04629-LHK, 2017 WL
4
264401, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
5
In Carvalho, the Ninth Circuit noted that it previously had “explained that an item on a
6
credit report can be ‘incomplete or inaccurate’ within the meaning of the FCRA’s furnisher
7
investigation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(D), ‘because it is patently incorrect, or because
8
it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect
9
credit decisions.’” Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 890 (quoting Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584
F.3d 1147, 1163 (2009)). The Ninth Circuit went on to affirm “‘the maxim of statutory
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
construction that similar terms appearing in different sections of a statute should receive the same
12
interpretation,’” id. (quoting United States v. Nordbrock, 38 F.3d 440, 444 (9th Cir. 1994)), and to
13
cite with approval a First Circuit case, Chiang, which the Ninth Circuit summarized as “deeming
14
the term ‘inaccurate’ in section 1681i(a) to be ‘essentially the same’ as the term ‘incomplete or
15
inaccurate’ in section 1681s-2(b),” id. (citing Chiang v. Verizon New Eng. Inc., 595 F.3d 26, 37
16
(1st Cir. 2010)). Relying on Carvalho, district courts have “applied this ‘patently incorrect or
17
materially misleading’ standard to claims arising under various provisions of the FCRA that
18
involve the accuracy of information.” Prianto v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 13-CV-03461-
19
TEH, 2014 WL 3381578, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2014). In particular, courts in this district have
20
applied the “patently incorrect or materially misleading” standard to the inaccuracy requirement
21
under § 1681i. See, e.g., Banneck v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 15-cv-02250-HSG, 2016 WL
22
3383960, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016); Prianto, 2014 WL 3381578, at *3.
23
24
Here, perhaps the most obvious deficiency in Plaintiff’s allegations against Equifax is her
failure to allege that the claimed inaccuracies in two different “three bureau report[s]” were
25
26
27
28
construing the FCRA, see id. at 889-91, and numerous courts have relied on Carvalho’s
explication of FCRA requirements when addressing FCRA claims, see, e.g., Artus v. Experian
Info. Sols., Inc., No. 5:16-CV-03322-EJD, 2017 WL 346022, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017);
Jaras v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 16-CV-03336-LHK, 2016 WL 7337540, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 19, 2016).
5
1
reported by Equifax rather than one of the other CRAs. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13. In order to make out an
2
FCRA claim against Equifax, Plaintiff must allege with specificity that Equifax reported
3
information that was patently incorrect or materially misleading. Other courts in this district have
4
dismissed FCRA claims based upon alleged inaccuracies in three bureau reports where no
5
specificity is provided as to which CRA reported the inaccuracies in question. See, e.g., Doster,
6
2017 WL 264401, at *6 (“Plaintiff’s FAC makes only general and unspecified allegations that her
7
credit report, which was a three-bureau credit report, contained inaccuracies and that the CRAs
8
reported misleading and inaccurate information, but the FAC does not allege any conduct that is
9
specific to Experian.”).
Plaintiff’s allegations are deficient in other respects as well. She alleges that after her
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Chapter 13 plan was confirmed, she ordered the February 2016 Credit Report and discovered
12
“several tradelines all reporting misleading and inaccurate account information.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff
13
also alleges that “Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC was reporting Plaintiff’s account,
14
beginning in 6130xxxx, as charged off, in collection, with a balance in the amount of $45,608, and
15
a past due balance in the amount of $45,608.00.” Id. ¶ 8. However, those allegations neither
16
identify Equifax as the reporting entity nor identify what was inaccurate about the reporting of the
17
Nationstar account. See id. Much later in the Complaint, in the paragraphs setting forth her
18
FCRA claim against Nationstar, Plaintiff alleges that Nationstar’s reporting was inaccurate and
19
misleading because it was done “despite the Court Ordered treatment of its claim under the terms
20
of Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 plan of reorganization.” Id. ¶ 23. That allegation appears after Plaintiff’s
21
FCRA claim against Equifax, is not incorporated into Plaintiff’s claim against Equifax, and thus
22
may not be considered with respect to Equifax.
Equifax is Not Required to Determine the Legal Status of Plaintiff’s Debts
23
C.
24
Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her Chapter 13 plan in
25
evaluating her FCRA claim against Equifax, those allegations are insufficient to state a viable
26
claim. To the extent Plaintiff asserts that the legal status of her debt to Nationstar changed upon
27
plan confirmation, and therefore that it was inaccurate for Equifax to report past due balances after
28
plan confirmation, that theory of liability has been rejected by courts in this district and other
6
1
districts within the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Artus v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 5:16-CV-
2
03322-EJD, 2017 WL 346022, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017) (collecting cases); Doster, 2017
3
WL 264401, at *6 (“[A]s a matter of law it is not misleading or inaccurate to report a delinquent
4
debt during the pendency of a bankruptcy.”); Polvorosa v. Allied Collection Serv., Inc., No. Case
5
No. 2:16–CV–1508 JCM (CWH), 2017 WL 29331, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2017) (“[R]eporting
6
delinquencies during the pendency of a bankruptcy or during a bankruptcy’s automatic stay is not
7
itself a violation of the FCRA.”).
8
Plaintiff argues that those decisions are based upon a misunderstanding of bankruptcy law,
9
as they fail to recognize that a bankruptcy court’s order confirming a Chapter 13 plan constitutes a
binding final judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the debtor and his or her creditors.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
According to Plaintiff, because a confirmed plan modifies the original debts, any post-
12
confirmation reporting of pre-confirmation delinquencies or balances is inaccurate. Plaintiff
13
appears to be arguing that CRAs cannot report information provided to them by furnishers without
14
first independently evaluating the legal effect of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan on such information.
15
Equifax argues that a CRA is neither capable of determining, nor required by law to determine, the
16
legal effect of a Chapter 13 confirmation order on a debt reported by a furnisher.
17
The relevant case law supports Equifax’s position on this point. In Carvalho, the Ninth
18
Circuit noted that “reinvestigation claims are not the proper vehicle for collaterally attacking the
19
legal validity of consumer debts.” Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 892. In that case, the allegedly
20
inaccurate reporting involved a charge for medical services that the plaintiff, Carvalho, claimed
21
should have been paid by her insurance company. Id. at 882. After Carvalho disputed the charge,
22
several CRAs requested and received verification of the debt from the furnisher. Id. The CRAs
23
thereafter continued reporting the debt, but they added Carvalho’s statement of dispute to her
24
credit reports. Id. at 882-83. In rejecting Carvalho’s argument that the CRAs were obligated to do
25
more, the Ninth Circuit found that “[t]he fundamental flaw in Carvalho’s conception of the
26
reinvestigation duty is that credit reporting agencies are not tribunals.” Id. at 891. The Ninth
27
Circuit reasoned that CRAs “simply collect and report information furnished by others” and thus
28
are “ill equipped to adjudicate contract disputes.” Id. For that reason, “courts have been loath to
7
1
allow consumers to mount collateral attacks on the legal validity of their debts in the guise of
2
FCRA reinvestigation claims.” Id.
3
Plaintiff argues that Carvalho is distinguishable from the present case, because in
4
Carvalho there had been no adjudication of the rights and obligations of the debtor and the
5
creditor, whereas in the present case there has been such an adjudication in the form of an order
6
confirming Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 plan. Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive. Carvalho did not
7
turn on the lack of finality of the debt at issue, but rather on the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that
8
CRAs are neither equipped nor obligated to determine the legal status of debts that have been
9
reported and verified by furnishers.
10
Plaintiff’s assertion of the legal effect of a Chapter 13 confirmation plan is unavailing for
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
other reasons as well. It is true that “[t]he provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and each
12
creditor.” 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a). Thus a creditor seeking payment on a debt is entitled only to
13
those payments provided for under the plan, and “any issue decided under a plan is entitled to res
14
judicata effect.” In re Blendheim, 803 F.3d 477, 486 (9th Cir. 2015). However, the Court
15
declines to make the logical leap urged by Plaintiff that these authorities, governing the
16
relationships between parties to a bankruptcy action, make it a violation of the FCRA for a CRA
17
to report a historically accurate pre-confirmation debt or delinquency. Regardless of how the
18
rights and obligations of the parties to a bankruptcy are modified by a Chapter 13 plan, the
19
original debt did exist prior to confirmation and Plaintiff has cited no authority suggesting that
20
bankruptcy proceedings “erase” that historical fact for purposes of the FCRA.
21
Plaintiff’s reliance on In re Luedtke, No. 02-35082-svk, 2008 WL 2952530 (Bankr. E.D.
22
Wis. July 31, 2008), is misplaced. In Luedtke, the bankruptcy court concluded that a creditor
23
whose claim was modified by a Chapter 13 confirmation order had violated that order by
24
continuing to report the original debt to CRAs. Id. at *6. The court suggested that in addition to
25
seeking sanctions for violation of the confirmed plan, the debtor also could have sought relief
26
under the FCRA. Id. In making that suggestion, the bankruptcy court appeared to assume that the
27
creditor’s reporting of the original debt would have constituted an inaccuracy under the FCRA.
28
Id. at *5. That view, expressed in dicta by a bankruptcy court outside the Ninth Circuit almost a
8
1
decade ago, has not been adopted by the courts in this district. In fact, it appears that Luedtke has
2
been cited by only one other court, which found the decision to be irrelevant to its determination
3
whether the plaintiff had pleaded a viable FCRA claim. See Wylie v. TransUnion, LLC, No. 3:16-
4
CV-102, 2017 WL 835205, at *5 n.6 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2017) (“[T]he question before the Court is
5
whether Defendants reported accurate information, not whether Defendant violated the bankruptcy
6
code.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
7
Moreover, with respect to the many debtors who fail to make all required plan payments,
8
the original debt terms ultimately are reinstated. See Blendheim, 803 F.3d at 487. Indeed,
9
historically accurate debts may be reported even after discharge, so long as the credit report
indicates that the debts were discharged in bankruptcy. See Mortimer v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C-
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
12-01959 JCS, 2013 WL 1501452, *9-11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (furnisher’s reporting that the
12
debt had been delinquent during the pendency of the bankruptcy was historically accurate and thus
13
not actionable under the FCRA where report also indicated that the debt had been discharged in
14
bankruptcy).
15
Plaintiff’s counsel argued at the hearing that allowing reporting of pre-confirmation
16
delinquencies or balances after a Chapter 13 plan has been confirmed will deprive debtors of
17
significant benefits that they expect to obtain through Chapter 13 bankruptcy. That issue is one
18
for Congress to resolve, not this Court. The Court’s task in evaluating Plaintiff’s Complaint is to
19
determine whether the facts alleged therein make out a plausible claim that Equifax’s credit
20
reporting was inaccurate. The Court simply is not persuaded that the reporting of a delinquency or
21
past due balance after plan confirmation is per se inaccurate under the FCRA.
22
However, there appears to be an open question whether such reporting could satisfy the
23
inaccuracy requirement if unaccompanied by any indication that the consumer is in bankruptcy.
24
See Devincenzi v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 16-CV-04628-LHK, 2017 WL 86131, at *7 (N.D.
25
Cal. Jan. 10, 2017) (declining to decide whether allegations that the “credit report contained no
26
indication at all that the debts were the subject of a pending bankruptcy . . . would be sufficient to
27
state a claim” but granting plaintiff leave to attempt to assert FCRA claim based on that theory). It
28
is this Court’s view that it may well be possible for a plaintiff to allege facts showing that the
9
1
reporting of a pre-confirmation delinquency is materially misleading absent any reference to a
2
pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy, at least where a confirmed plan governs the timing and amounts
3
of post-confirmation payments on the debt. Plaintiff, however, has not alleged whether or not the
4
reports in question contained information regarding her bankruptcy.
5
C.
Leave to Amend
6
In deciding whether to grant Plaintiff leave to amend her pleading, the Court must consider
the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), and discussed
8
at length by the Ninth Circuit in Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.
9
2003). A district court ordinarily must grant leave to amend unless one or more of the Foman
10
factors is present: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
deficiencies by amendment, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) futility of
12
amendment. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. “[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the
13
opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Id. However a strong showing with respect to
14
one of the other factors may warrant denial of leave to amend. Id.
15
The first factor (undue delay), second factor (bad faith), and fourth factor (undue
16
prejudice) do not weigh against granting leave to amend at this time, although the Court may well
17
have a different view in the event that Plaintiff’s counsel fails to address the deficiencies
18
addressed herein and persists in submitting pleadings consisting primarily of copy-and-paste
19
boilerplate allegations. The third factor (failure to cure deficiencies) also does not weigh against
20
granting leave to amend, as Plaintiff has not previously amended her pleading. Finally, with
21
respect to the fifth factor (futility of amendment), the Court has grave reservations whether
22
Plaintiff will be able to state a viable FCRA claim against Equifax. However, because it is not
23
clear that Plaintiff cannot do so, the Court will grant her leave to amend.
24
If Plaintiff chooses to amend her FCRA claim against Equifax, she shall allege with
25
specificity what reporting is attributable to Equifax and shall either attach a copy of each report or
26
allege the offending tradelines verbatim. Failure to do so will be deemed an admission that
27
Plaintiff is incapable of pleading specific facts giving rise to liability under the FCRA.
28
10
1
2
IV.
ORDER
(1)
Equifax’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND;
3
4
(2)
Any amended pleading shall be filed on or before April 17, 2017; and
5
(3)
Leave to amend is limited to the FCRA claim discussed in this order; Plaintiff
6
may not add new claims or parties without express leave of the Court.
7
8
9
10
Dated: March 27, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
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?