United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
DKT. 19, 27, 29, 40
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
brings the instant action against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), Equifax, Inc.
(“Equifax”), Chase Bank USA, N.A.
(“Chase”) and Capital One claiming that they
improperly reported debts or delinquencies on her credit
report, without taking into account that the debts were
modified under the terms of a confirmed Chapter 13
reorganization plan. The Complaint alleges a claim under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s-2(b), against all Defendants; and a claim under
the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
(“CCRAA”), Cal. Civ. Code section 1785.1, et
seq., against Chase and Capital One. Plaintiff previously
dismissed Capital One from the action.
parties are presently before the Court on Experian, Equifax,
and Chase's respective motions to dismiss, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 27, 29, 40.
Having read and considered the papers filed in connection
with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby
GRANTS the motions for the reasons set forth
April 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy
protection. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 87.
“Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code affords individuals
receiving regular income an opportunity to obtain some relief
from their debts while retaining their property. To proceed
under Chapter 13, a debtor must propose a plan to use future
income to repay a portion (or in the rare case all) of his
debts over the next three to five years.” Bullard
v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 1690 (2015).
“If the bankruptcy court confirms the plan and the
debtor successfully carries it out, he receives a discharge
of his debts according to the plan.” Id. at
1690. The Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan was confirmed on June 2,
2015. Compl. ¶ 93. Plaintiff does not allege that she
has completed the plan or that any of her debts have been
March 18, 2016, Plaintiff ordered a three-bureau credit
report from Experian. Id. ¶ 105. In the report,
she “noticed 7 different tradelines … all
reporting inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete information
that did not comport with credit reporting industry
standards.” Id. ¶ 106. These trade lines
allegedly reported the accounts “with past due
balances, inaccurate balances, and/or with late
payments.” Id. Plaintiff also claims that
“[s]ome accounts even failed to register that Plaintiff
was making payments on the account through Plaintiff's
Chapter 13 plan.” Id. On August 5, 2016, she
responded to the report by notifying Experian, Equifax and
Trans Union LLC that they were “not reporting the
bankruptcy accurately or worse not at all.”
Id. ¶ 107-108.
September 1, 2016, Plaintiff ordered another three bureau
credit report from three aforementioned credit reporting
agencies to ensure that her accounts had been updated.
Id. ¶ 110. However, she found that the Chase
and Capital One accounts did not reflect the terms of her
Chapter 13 plan. Id. ¶¶ 111-112.
November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this
Court. The first claim is for “Failure to
Reinvestigate” under the FCRA, and is brought against
all Defendants. As to Chase and WFB, the Complaint alleges
that they violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by furnishing
information to a credit reporting agency without conducting
“a reasonable investigation and re-reporting misleading
and inaccurate account information.” Id.
¶¶ 117-18. Credit reporting agencies Experian and
Equifax are alleged to have violated 15 U.S.C. §
1681i(a) by “fail[ing] to conduct a reasonable
investigation and fail[ing] to correct the misleading and or
inaccurate statements on the account within the statutory
time frame or at all.” Id. ¶¶ 128.
The second claim, which alleges a violation of the CCRAA, is
brought only against Chase and Capital One-the latter of
which has since been dismissed from the action. Dkt. 44.
Equifax, and Chase have filed separate motions to dismiss,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which
have been opposed by Plaintiff. The motions are fully briefed
and are ripe for adjudication.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “tests the legal
sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250
F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “Dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) is proper when the complaint either (1) lacks a
cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient
facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Somers
v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The court is to “accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the
pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City
of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2007).
Where a complaint or claim is dismissed, leave to amend
generally is granted, unless further amendment would be
futile. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011).