Summary
granting summary judgment to defendants Experian and Bank of America because the plaintiff's complaint alleged an inaccuracy different from the inaccuracy referred to in the plaintiff's dispute letter; therefore, the inaccuracy alleged in the complaint was "insufficient to trigger Experian's duty under § 1681i"
Summary of this case from Petty v. Equifax Information Services, LLCOpinion
No. 08-56801.
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2010.
Filed February 23, 2010.
Ronald J. Herisko, Attorney at Law, Palm Springs, CA, pro se.
Benjamin Nachimson, Law Offices of Benjamin Nachimson, Los Angeles, CA, Meir Feder, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:07-cv-00981-SG-LOP.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plaintiff appeals the district court's adverse summary judgment ruling, dismissing claims he asserted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681- 1681x ("FCRA"), against Defendants Bank of America and Experian. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In order to trigger a credit reporting agency's duty under the FCRA to investigate a claim of inaccurate information, a consumer must notify the agency of the purported reporting error. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). Here, the only notice Plaintiff provided to Experian about his dispute was a letter claiming that his credit information was inaccurate because his second mortgage with Bank of America "was not discharged" but rather "exempted from the [b]ankruptcy under California exemptions." This letter did not put Experian on notice that Plaintiff was claiming a different purported inaccuracy, i.e., that his credit report failed to reflect the fact and consequences of his second mortgage "riding through" his bankruptcy. This is the alleged inaccuracy underlying the present suit. Plaintiffs dispute letter was therefore insufficient to trigger Experian's duty under § 1681i. The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs claim against Experian.
Plaintiffs deficient notice to Experian also proves fatal to his claim against Bank of America. A consumer may sue a furnisher of credit information, such as Bank of America, only if such furnisher breaches a list of duties enumerated in § 1681s-2(b). See Gorman v. Wolpoff Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009). However, "[t]hese duties arise only after the furnisher receives notice of dispute from a [credit reporting agency]. . . ." Id. (emphasis added). Not only is there no record evidence that Experian ever notified Bank of America of Plaintiffs dispute, but even if Experian had forwarded Plaintiffs dispute letter to the bank, such notice would have borne no relationship to the purported inaccuracies underlying Plaintiffs claims here. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs claim against Bank of America.
Although the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants because it found that the information contained in Plaintiffs credit report was not "inaccurate" under § 1681e(b), we may affirm the district court's ruling on any basis supported by the record. McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009). We do so here, and therefore do not consider the accuracy issue or any other issue raised by the parties.