United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO.
36
KANDIS
A. WESTMORE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Marna Paintsil Anning filed the instant case against
Defendant Capital One Auto Finance, asserting violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
(See Second Amend. Compl. (“SAC”), Dkt.
No. 35.) On September 12, 2019, Defendant filed the instant
motion to dismiss. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 36.)
The
Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without a
hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Upon
consideration of the parties' arguments and the
applicable legal authority, and for the reasons set forth
below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
alleges that on July 6, 2014, Plaintiff purchased a vehicle,
obtaining financing from Defendant. (SAC ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff's payments were due on the 20th of each month,
with a 10-day grace period. (SAC ¶¶ 6-7.) After
Defendant changed Plaintiff's due date to the 27th of
each month, Plaintiff asked Defendant to change her due date
to the 1st of each month; Defendant agreed to make the change
but failed to do so. (SAC ¶¶ 8-9.)
In May
2015, Plaintiff became unemployed and made several late
payments, falling behind on her payment schedule by thirty
days. (SAC ¶ 11.) In September 2015, Defendant received
a credit against Plaintiff's account due to a refund from
the dealer. Although the credit exceeded two months'
payments, Defendant continued to hold Plaintiff's account
in delinquent status. (SAC ¶ 11.) In October 2015,
Plaintiff brought her account to current status, but
Defendant continued to report Plaintiff as past due to the
credit bureaus. (SAC ¶ 11.)
In
January 2016, Plaintiff called Defendant to dispute her
account status. (SAC ¶ 12.) Defendant offered Plaintiff
a payment plan where she could skip that month's payment
but accelerate one payment to the following month, such that
Plaintiff would no longer incur late payment penalties. In
February 2016, Plaintiff made a partial accelerated payment,
but was unable to make the remainder of the payment.
Plaintiff continued to make regular payments, but discovered
in April 2016 that Defendant was reporting her 90 days past
due. (SAC ¶ 12.)
In May
2016, Plaintiff contacted Defendant for an accounting of her
past payments. (SAC ¶ 13.) She also disputed her payment
record in light of the dealer credit. Defendant, however,
failed to credit the dealership payments. (SAC ¶ 13.)
Defendant also continued to maintain the accelerated payment
on Plaintiff's statements. (SAC ¶ 15.) Between
September and October 2016, Plaintiff made several complaints
to Experian regarding Defendant's reporting of her
account payment history. (SAC ¶ 14.)
In
November 2016, Plaintiff paid all sums due, including the
accelerated payment, and continued to make timely payments
until November 2018. (SAC ¶¶ 15-16.) In July 2018,
however, Plaintiff was denied a line of credit because
Defendant had reported her note to be in arrears past sixty
days, even though her account was current. (SAC ¶ 16.)
In
November 2018, Plaintiff missed a payment, but made a double
payment in December 2018. (SAC ¶ 17.) Defendant,
however, marked her December 2018 payment late starting in
February 2019. (SAC ¶ 17.) In February 2019, Plaintiff
received a notification that her credit score had dropped
eighty points. (SAC ¶ 18.) That same month, she
contacted Defendant to dispute the accuracy of the
information reported, and requested that Defendant conduct an
internal investigation to correct the “late”
status of her December payment. (SAC ¶ 19.) Defendant
declined to make any corrections. (SAC ¶ 19.) In March
2019, Plaintiff made additional complaints to Experian
regarding her disputes with Defendant's reporting of
Plaintiff's account payment history. (SAC ¶ 21.)
In
February 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant case in small
claims court. (See Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.)
Defendant removed the case to federal court, and moved for
dismissal. (See Dkt. No. 9.) The Court granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss, after Plaintiff conceded
her initial complaint was inadequate. (May 15, 2019 Ord. at
1-2, Dkt. No. 19.) The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint.
On June
7, 2019, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint.
Defendant then moved for dismissal. (Dkt. No. 22.) On July
31, 2019, the Court granted Defendant's motion, but only
on the ground that Plaintiff did not allege she had initiated
a dispute with a CRA. (July 31, 2019 Ord. at 4, Dkt. No. 30.)
Because Plaintiff stated in her opposition that she had made
complaints to Experian in September and October 2016, as well
as in March 2019, the Court found amendment was not futile.
(Id.) The Court rejected Defendant's arguments
that Plaintiff had failed to allege that Defendant furnished
any inaccurate information, and that Plaintiff had failed to
allege that Defendant did not conduct a reasonable
investigation. (Id. at 5-6.)
On
August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed her second amended
complaint. Defendant again moved for dismissal. On September
30, 2019, Plaintiff filed her opposition. (Pl.'s
Opp'n, Dkt. No. 40.) On October 7, 2019, Defendant filed
its reply. (Def.'s Reply, Dkt. No. 43.)
II.
...