1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALISA RAZUMOVSKY, Case No. 2:25-cv-02257-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 14 NELNET SERVICING, LLC, (ECF Nos. 2, 9) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Alisa Razumovsky is representing herself in this action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s 19 application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing. 20 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request. 21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490 5 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 6 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 7 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 8 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). 9 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 10 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 11 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 12 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough 15 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 17 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the 19 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be 20 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC alleging the 24 following six violations: (1) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) based on a duty to report accurate 25 and complete information; (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) for furnishing information 26 with knowledge of inaccuracy; (3) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(B) for continuing to report 27 inaccurate information after notice; (4) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(2)(B) for failing to update 28 or correct inaccurate information; (5) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(iv) for failing to 1 properly respond to a dispute; and (6) Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a) for knowingly 2 furnishing incomplete and inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. First 3 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 4 (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff alleges in 2024, she disputed her 4 student loan accounts with Defendant due to incomplete and inaccurate information on 5 her credit report. FAC ¶¶ 8-13. Plaintiff alleges she disputed various discrepancies she 6 had discovered on her credit report, but that Defendant failed to conduct a proper 7 investigation, fix these discrepancies, and provide accurate and timely information to 8 credit reporting agencies. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. 9 A. No Private Right of Action Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) 10 The First Amended Complaint raises five causes of action (Claims 1-5) that are 11 brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). See FAC at 4. Under the Fair Credit 12 Reporting Act, a claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) “can be pursued only by 13 federal or state officials, and not by a private party.” Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 14 LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir. 2009). There is no private right of action that Plaintiff, 15 as private citizen, can bring pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). However, the Fair 16 Credit Reporting Act does “expressly provide for a private right of action for willful or 17 negligent noncompliance with its requirements” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 18 1681o that is applicable to violations of the duties imposed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). 19 Id. Therefore, any of the duties enumerated in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) can provide for a 20 private right of action. Id. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff may be able to state a 21 claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend 22 her First Amended Complaint to the extent Plaintiff believes she has a viable claim 23 against Defendant for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 24 Claims 1-5 against Defendant are dismissed with leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d 25 at 1130-31. 26 B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALISA RAZUMOVSKY, Case No. 2:25-cv-02257-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 14 NELNET SERVICING, LLC, (ECF Nos. 2, 9) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Alisa Razumovsky is representing herself in this action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s 19 application in support of the IFP request makes the required financial showing. 20 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP request. 21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis 23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 25 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 26 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490 5 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 6 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 7 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 8 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post–Iqbal). 9 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 10 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 11 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 12 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 14 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough 15 facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 16 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 17 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the 19 complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be 20 cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC alleging the 24 following six violations: (1) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) based on a duty to report accurate 25 and complete information; (2) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) for furnishing information 26 with knowledge of inaccuracy; (3) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(B) for continuing to report 27 inaccurate information after notice; (4) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(2)(B) for failing to update 28 or correct inaccurate information; (5) 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(iv) for failing to 1 properly respond to a dispute; and (6) Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a) for knowingly 2 furnishing incomplete and inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. First 3 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 4 (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff alleges in 2024, she disputed her 4 student loan accounts with Defendant due to incomplete and inaccurate information on 5 her credit report. FAC ¶¶ 8-13. Plaintiff alleges she disputed various discrepancies she 6 had discovered on her credit report, but that Defendant failed to conduct a proper 7 investigation, fix these discrepancies, and provide accurate and timely information to 8 credit reporting agencies. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. 9 A. No Private Right of Action Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) 10 The First Amended Complaint raises five causes of action (Claims 1-5) that are 11 brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). See FAC at 4. Under the Fair Credit 12 Reporting Act, a claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) “can be pursued only by 13 federal or state officials, and not by a private party.” Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 14 LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir. 2009). There is no private right of action that Plaintiff, 15 as private citizen, can bring pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). However, the Fair 16 Credit Reporting Act does “expressly provide for a private right of action for willful or 17 negligent noncompliance with its requirements” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 18 1681o that is applicable to violations of the duties imposed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). 19 Id. Therefore, any of the duties enumerated in 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) can provide for a 20 private right of action. Id. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff may be able to state a 21 claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend 22 her First Amended Complaint to the extent Plaintiff believes she has a viable claim 23 against Defendant for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 24 Claims 1-5 against Defendant are dismissed with leave to amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d 25 at 1130-31. 26 B. State Law Claim 27 Plaintiff also seeks to bring a claim pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a) for 28 furnishing incomplete and inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies, which is a 1 state law claim. As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under federal 2 law. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 3 state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s 4 Association, 535 F.Supp.3d 913, 931 (E.D. Cal. 2021); Religious Tech. Ctr. V. 5 Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 C. Leave to Amend 7 Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, even a pro se 8 litigant’s complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and 9 succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). In 10 light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and because it is at least conceivable that Plaintiff could 11 allege additional facts to state claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), the Court finds it 12 appropriate to grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her First Amended Complaint. See 13 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31 (indicating that prior to dismissal, the court is to tell the 14 plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and provide an opportunity to cure – if it appears 15 at all possible the defects can be corrected). 16 If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, this new pleading shall allege facts 17 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction and must contain a short and plain 18 statement of Plaintiff's claim. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in 19 sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than 20 the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being 21 repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of 22 circumstances” where possible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Forms are available to help 23 plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's 24 Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 25 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. The amended complaint should be titled “Second 26 Amended Complaint.” 27 The amended complaint must not require the Court and the defendants to guess 28 at what is being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th 1 Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally 2 guessing as to what facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain 3 defendants”). The amended complaint must not require the Court to spend its time 4 “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. 5 at 1180. The amended complaint must not require the Court and defendants to prepare 6 lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for what.” Id. at 1179. 7 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or other filing in 8 order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an 9 amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a 10 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes prior complaint(s), and once the 11 amended complaint is filed and served, any previous complaint no longer serves any 12 function in the case. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). 13 D. Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motion 14 Plaintiff has also filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to 15 Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15.) Defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied 16 as premature on December 9, 2025 due to the pending screening of Plaintiff’s FAC. See 17 12/9/2025 Order (ECF No. 12). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 18 extension of time as unnecessary. 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; 22 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 23 3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED with leave 24 to amend; and 25 4. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file a Second 26 Amended Complaint that complies with the instructions provided above. If 27 Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 28 / / / 1 recommend that this action be dismissed. 2 3 Dated: February 27, 2026 Cc iG $s 4 CHI S00 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 || 4, razu2257.25 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28