Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marpu Venugopal v. Citibank

April 3, 2013

MARPU VENUGOPAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITIBANK, NA,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 29)

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Defendant Citibank, NA moves to dismiss Plaintiff Marpu 11 Venugopal's first amended complaint (1AC) for failure to state a 12 claim. Plaintiff opposes the motion. After considering the 13 parties' submissions and oral argument, the Court denies 14 Defendant's motion.*fn1

BACKGROUND

On January 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 1AC alleging that 17 Defendant reported inaccurate information about his finances to 18 various credit reporting agencies. 1AC ¶¶ 12-20. Specifically, 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. Id. 22

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. Id. 25

Three days later, on May 5, Plaintiff sent letters to the three 26 credit reporting agencies who compiled the report -- Experian, 2 Equifax, and TransUnion -- to dispute the outstanding debt. Id. 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. Id. ¶ 16. 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. Id. 9 Two weeks after writing to the credit reporting agencies, 10 Plaintiff requested new credit reports to confirm that the 11 misreported debt had been removed. He has attached excerpts from four of these credit reports to his 1AC. Id. ¶¶ 17-20, Ex. A. 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.*fn2 Id. ¶ 17. He asserts, however, that the fourth 16 report provides documentation of Defendant's reporting failure. 17 That report, issued by Experian on May 17, 2011, displays an 12 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." Id., Ex. B, at 1. But the next page of the 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. Id. at 2. Because the debt timeline does not refer 24 to his 2009 bankruptcy, Plaintiff alleges that the timeline shows 25 26 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. Id. 8 ¶¶ 24-65. 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

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. Civ. P. 8(a). On a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to 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. Bell Atl. Corp. v. 16 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the 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. NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 20 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). However, this principle is inapplicable 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 24 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Although the court is 25 typically ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.