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.

Banga v. First USA, N.A.

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

March 20, 2014

KAMLESH BANGA, Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST USA, NA & CHASE BANK USA, NA and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants

Decided March 19, 2014

Page 1271

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1272

Kamlesh Banga, Plaintiff, Pro se, Vallejo, CA.

For First USA, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., Defendants: Wendy Chai Krog, LEAD ATTORNEY, George Geoffrey Weickhardt, Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley, PC, San Francisco, CA.

Page 1273

ORDER

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, United States District Judge.

Docket 139, 165, 166

Kamlesh Banga (" Plaintiff" ), proceeding pro se, brings the instant action against First USA, NA and Chase Bank USA, NA

Page 1274

(collectively, " Chase" )[1] alleging violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (" CCRAA" ), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.1 et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA" ), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. The parties are presently before the Court on Chase's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 139. Also before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply or, in the alternative, motion to strike, and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages to sur-reply. Dkt. 165, 166. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with these matters and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS Chase's motion for summary judgment, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply or, in the alternative, motion to strike, and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages to sur-reply. The Court, in its discretion, finds these matters suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

I. BACKGROUND

On July 5, 2004, Chase sent a letter to Plaintiff and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (" Experian" ) notifying them that it had closed Plaintiff's credit card account ending in 7692. Third Am. Compl. (" TAC" ) ¶ 8. In July 2005, Chase informed Equifax. Inc. (" Equifax" ) that it had closed Plaintiff's credit card account ending in 7692. Id. Plaintiff alleges that despite the fact that there was no open credit card account to be " reviewed," Chase " obtained and continue[d] to obtain [her] credit report for account review [2] and unknown purposes under false pretenses" on various dates from July 6, 2004 to December 9, 2009. See id. ¶ ¶ 8-31, 33. According to Plaintiff, Chase " intentionally misrepresented" to Experian and Equifax that their requests for her credit report were for " account review" purposes. See id. ¶ ¶ 9-31. Plaintiff asserts that Chase's procurement of her credit reports under false pretenses amounts to willful and negligent violations of the FCRA and CCRAA. See id. ¶ ¶ 33-34, 36-38, 40-41, 43-44, 46-48. Plaintiff ...


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.