1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No.: 25cv1571 DMS (BLM) BRIAN BOHAN, an individual,
10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING CREDIT 11 v. REPORTING AGENCY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 12 CITIBANK, N.A.; EXPERIAN DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, 14 LLC; TRANS UNION, LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This case comes before the Court on credit reporting agency (“CRA”) Defendants 19 Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans 20 Union, LLCs’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff 21 filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. The matter is fully briefed 22 and submitted. 23 The Court previously granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 24 with leave to amend on December 30, 2025. (“Order; ECF No. 24.) The principal 25 allegations of the FAC largely repeat those stated in the Complaint.1 Generally, Plaintiff 26
27 1 The factual background set forth herein derives from Plaintiff’s FAC and is assumed to be true for 28 1 alleges in his FAC that upon opening a Citibank Simplicity credit card in October 2024, he 2 set up an autopay account with Citibank to cover the minimum amount due each month. 3 Citibank confirmed with Plaintiff that the autopay had been successfully set up and it would 4 draw the monthly minimum payment each month going forward. However, the minimum 5 payments were not made because Citibank incorrectly input Plaintiff’s information. 6 Plaintiff reasonably believed that he would not need to manually make the payments and 7 had no notice the auto-payments were not being made until December 2024, when he 8 learned that Citibank had reported 30 and 60 day late payments to the CRAs. Plaintiff 9 alleges Citibank acknowledged fault for incorrectly inputting his information, but Citibank 10 refused to remove the adverse credit reporting despite admitting its error. Plaintiff alleges 11 he acted responsibly by enrolling in autopay and, when learning of Citibank’s failure to 12 make payments, promptly made the required payments himself—but the reported late 13 payments remained on his credit reports and caused him harm, including a decrease in 14 available credit and loss of income. 15 On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff mailed certified dispute letters to the CRA Defendants 16 informing them that Citibank admitted fault but refused to remove the reporting 17 inaccuracies. Plaintiff requested that the CRA Defendants conduct an independent 18 investigation, but Defendants did no investigation beyond simply reviewing Citibank’s 19 response to an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification form and confirming that 20 Citibank had received no timely payments. Defendants ultimately verified the 21 delinquencies as accurate and declined to remove the entries. 22 Plaintiff now brings a single claim against the CRA Defendants under the Fair Credit 23 Reporting Agencies Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. Under the FCRA, CRAs 24 are required to ensure the accuracy of their reporting, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and must 25 conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information, id. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 26 Information is inaccurate “where it is either patently incorrect or is misleading[.]” 27 Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010). A CRA violates 28 the FCRA if it provides a report that is “misleading or incomplete, even if it is technically 1 accurate.” Id. at 890 (quoting Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc., 39 Cal. App. 4th 548 (1995)). 2 However, a CRA is not “required as part of its reinvestigation duties to provide a legal 3 opinion” since “determining whether the consumer has a valid defense is a question for a 4 court to resolve in a suit against the creditor, not a job imposed upon consumer reporting 5 agencies by the FCRA.” Id. at 892. 6 CRA Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC in its entirety under Rule 7 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CRA Defendants argue there is no dispute 8 that payments to Plaintiff’s credit card were both due and late, thus they accurately reported 9 the late payments and bear no responsibility under the FCRA. The central issue, according 10 to CRA Defendants, is whether Plaintiff or Citibank is legally responsible for the late 11 payments, which is a “collateral legal dispute” that CRAs need not delve into to satisfy 12 their reporting obligations under the law. The Court agrees. 13 In deciding the present motion, the Court is mindful of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), where the Supreme 15 Court established a more stringent standard of review for 12(b)(6) motions. To survive a 16 motion to dismiss under this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 17 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 18 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Under these authorities, the Court must view the 19 allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, consider allegations of 20 the complaint as true, and accept all reasonable inferences. In addition, the Court’s review 21 of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to the face of the complaint and any 22 attachments thereto. 23 Plaintiff does not dispute that payments were due under his Citibank credit card or 24 that the payments were late, and thus Plaintiff does not allege the CRA Defendants’ 25 reporting was “patently incorrect” since there is no dispute his payments were not timely 26 made. Rather, Plaintiff argues the CRA Defendants’ credit reports are “misleading” 27 because “they created the false impression that Plaintiff failed to pay because of financial 28 irresponsibility, when in reality the delinquency resulted from Citibank’s admitted 1 processing error.” (Opp’n at 1.) According to Plaintiff, “[b]y omitting this material context 2 from its credit reporting, CRA Defendants’ reports conveyed an incomplete and misleading 3 picture of Plaintiff’s credit risk, precisely the type of harm the FCRA was enacted to 4 prevent.” Id. Plaintiff argues the delinquency resulted “solely” from Citibank’s processing 5 error, (id. at 7), and “not [from his] financial irresponsibility[.]” Id. at 6. However, the 6 problem for Plaintiff is his theory of liability under the FCRA is contrary to Ninth Circuit 7 law. 8 In Carvalho, the Ninth Circuit made clear that a CRA “is not … obligated … to 9 report any information about [a] disputed item simply because the consumer asserts a legal 10 defense.” 629 F.3d at 892 (quoting Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 11 1151, 1158 (11th Cir. 1991)) (stating the “very economic purpose for credit reporting 12 companies would be significantly vitiated if they shaded every credit history in their files 13 in the best possible light for the consumer.”). Carvalho further makes clear that “a 14 consumer who avails herself of a good or service [like autopay] but defaults on payment 15 would be considered less creditworthy than one who does not, regardless of how legally 16 sound her reasons for default are.” Id. at 891. See also Braun v. Trans Union LLC, No. 17 19-06098-CJC (SKx), 2019 WL 13083348, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Case No.: 25cv1571 DMS (BLM) BRIAN BOHAN, an individual,
10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING CREDIT 11 v. REPORTING AGENCY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 12 CITIBANK, N.A.; EXPERIAN DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, 14 LLC; TRANS UNION, LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This case comes before the Court on credit reporting agency (“CRA”) Defendants 19 Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans 20 Union, LLCs’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff 21 filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. The matter is fully briefed 22 and submitted. 23 The Court previously granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 24 with leave to amend on December 30, 2025. (“Order; ECF No. 24.) The principal 25 allegations of the FAC largely repeat those stated in the Complaint.1 Generally, Plaintiff 26
27 1 The factual background set forth herein derives from Plaintiff’s FAC and is assumed to be true for 28 1 alleges in his FAC that upon opening a Citibank Simplicity credit card in October 2024, he 2 set up an autopay account with Citibank to cover the minimum amount due each month. 3 Citibank confirmed with Plaintiff that the autopay had been successfully set up and it would 4 draw the monthly minimum payment each month going forward. However, the minimum 5 payments were not made because Citibank incorrectly input Plaintiff’s information. 6 Plaintiff reasonably believed that he would not need to manually make the payments and 7 had no notice the auto-payments were not being made until December 2024, when he 8 learned that Citibank had reported 30 and 60 day late payments to the CRAs. Plaintiff 9 alleges Citibank acknowledged fault for incorrectly inputting his information, but Citibank 10 refused to remove the adverse credit reporting despite admitting its error. Plaintiff alleges 11 he acted responsibly by enrolling in autopay and, when learning of Citibank’s failure to 12 make payments, promptly made the required payments himself—but the reported late 13 payments remained on his credit reports and caused him harm, including a decrease in 14 available credit and loss of income. 15 On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff mailed certified dispute letters to the CRA Defendants 16 informing them that Citibank admitted fault but refused to remove the reporting 17 inaccuracies. Plaintiff requested that the CRA Defendants conduct an independent 18 investigation, but Defendants did no investigation beyond simply reviewing Citibank’s 19 response to an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification form and confirming that 20 Citibank had received no timely payments. Defendants ultimately verified the 21 delinquencies as accurate and declined to remove the entries. 22 Plaintiff now brings a single claim against the CRA Defendants under the Fair Credit 23 Reporting Agencies Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. Under the FCRA, CRAs 24 are required to ensure the accuracy of their reporting, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), and must 25 conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information, id. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). 26 Information is inaccurate “where it is either patently incorrect or is misleading[.]” 27 Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010). A CRA violates 28 the FCRA if it provides a report that is “misleading or incomplete, even if it is technically 1 accurate.” Id. at 890 (quoting Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc., 39 Cal. App. 4th 548 (1995)). 2 However, a CRA is not “required as part of its reinvestigation duties to provide a legal 3 opinion” since “determining whether the consumer has a valid defense is a question for a 4 court to resolve in a suit against the creditor, not a job imposed upon consumer reporting 5 agencies by the FCRA.” Id. at 892. 6 CRA Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC in its entirety under Rule 7 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CRA Defendants argue there is no dispute 8 that payments to Plaintiff’s credit card were both due and late, thus they accurately reported 9 the late payments and bear no responsibility under the FCRA. The central issue, according 10 to CRA Defendants, is whether Plaintiff or Citibank is legally responsible for the late 11 payments, which is a “collateral legal dispute” that CRAs need not delve into to satisfy 12 their reporting obligations under the law. The Court agrees. 13 In deciding the present motion, the Court is mindful of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), where the Supreme 15 Court established a more stringent standard of review for 12(b)(6) motions. To survive a 16 motion to dismiss under this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 17 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 18 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Under these authorities, the Court must view the 19 allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, consider allegations of 20 the complaint as true, and accept all reasonable inferences. In addition, the Court’s review 21 of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to the face of the complaint and any 22 attachments thereto. 23 Plaintiff does not dispute that payments were due under his Citibank credit card or 24 that the payments were late, and thus Plaintiff does not allege the CRA Defendants’ 25 reporting was “patently incorrect” since there is no dispute his payments were not timely 26 made. Rather, Plaintiff argues the CRA Defendants’ credit reports are “misleading” 27 because “they created the false impression that Plaintiff failed to pay because of financial 28 irresponsibility, when in reality the delinquency resulted from Citibank’s admitted 1 processing error.” (Opp’n at 1.) According to Plaintiff, “[b]y omitting this material context 2 from its credit reporting, CRA Defendants’ reports conveyed an incomplete and misleading 3 picture of Plaintiff’s credit risk, precisely the type of harm the FCRA was enacted to 4 prevent.” Id. Plaintiff argues the delinquency resulted “solely” from Citibank’s processing 5 error, (id. at 7), and “not [from his] financial irresponsibility[.]” Id. at 6. However, the 6 problem for Plaintiff is his theory of liability under the FCRA is contrary to Ninth Circuit 7 law. 8 In Carvalho, the Ninth Circuit made clear that a CRA “is not … obligated … to 9 report any information about [a] disputed item simply because the consumer asserts a legal 10 defense.” 629 F.3d at 892 (quoting Cahlin v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 11 1151, 1158 (11th Cir. 1991)) (stating the “very economic purpose for credit reporting 12 companies would be significantly vitiated if they shaded every credit history in their files 13 in the best possible light for the consumer.”). Carvalho further makes clear that “a 14 consumer who avails herself of a good or service [like autopay] but defaults on payment 15 would be considered less creditworthy than one who does not, regardless of how legally 16 sound her reasons for default are.” Id. at 891. See also Braun v. Trans Union LLC, No. 17 19-06098-CJC (SKx), 2019 WL 13083348, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2019) (finding CRA’s 18 reporting of late payment caused by furnisher’s error not misleading because plaintiff’s 19 payment indisputably was late and “she merely disputed the lateness was not her fault[,]” 20 which is insufficient “to plead a ‘materially misleading’ statement on her credit report[.]”); 21 Tuttobene v. Tans Union, LLC, No. 19-dv-01999, 2021 WL 2188232, at *2 (D. Nev. May 22 28, 2021) (holding a CRA “does not violate” the FCRA “by accurately reporting a late 23 payment even if the consumer has a good explanation for why the payment was late.”); 24 Tom Chen v. Vertical Screen, Inc., No. 17-cv-00938, 2017 WL 3704836, at *4 (W.D. 25 Wash. Aug. 28, 2017 (collecting cases and finding “failure to provide additional 26 information ‘to explain the significance of an accurate report entry’ … is ‘not the type of 27 misleading omission that has been found sufficient to fulfill the inaccuracy element of a § 28 1681e(b) claim.’”) (citation omitted)). See also Arniella v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 21-cv- 1 23694-DLG, 2022 WL 2349016, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2022) (claim against CRA for 2 reporting late payment dismissed where determining fault for late autopayment was 3 “collateral …, which [CRA] is not in a position to resolve.”) (collecting cases “around the 4 country” that have dismissed similar actions against CRAs). 5 Carvalho also points out that the consumer remedy for a disputed adverse credit 6 report is to “file a brief statement setting forth the nature of the dispute[,]” which the CRA 7 must “unless there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is frivolous or irrelevant, … 8 [include] in any subsequent consumer report containing the information in question, clearly 9 note that it is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer's statement or a 10 clear and accurate codification or summary thereof.” Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 892 (citing 15 11 U.S.C. § 1681i(b)-(c)). Because CRAs are not “tribunals,” they are not required to 12 “provide a legal opinion on the merits” of a dispute between a consumer and a furnisher 13 like Citibank. Id. That there is a legal dispute between Plaintiff and Citibank over who 14 bears ultimate responsibility for the two late payments at issue absolves the CRA 15 Defendants of liability under the FCRA so long as they accurately reported those late 16 payments, which they undisputedly did.2 17 Plaintiff again relies on Regalado v. Experian Info. Sos., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-1309- 18 RFB-NJK, 2023 WL 6393222 (D. Nev. Sep. 30 2023), a case involving an autopay 19 agreement, late payment due to the creditor’s error in managing the autopay, and adverse 20 credit reporting by CRAs. But in Regalado there was no legal dispute as to who bore 21 ultimate responsibility for the late payment. Id. at *5 (stating “at the time the Plaintiff 22
23 2 Plaintiff also alleges that “no autopay had been set up at all[,]” that he “did not enter into any 24 agreement with Citibank[,]” and that he “did not sign any agreement pertaining to the autopay, nor was 25 he ever provided any terms and conditions related to the auto pay service.” (FAC ¶ 24.) However, CRA Defendants correctly argue that whether the dispute between Plaintiff and Citibank arises from Citibank’s 26 alleged representations to Plaintiff that an autopay account had been established or over the terms of an autopay agreement does not matter since determining whether Plaintiff or Citibank, or both, bear fault for 27 the late payments calls for a legal assessment that the CRA Defendants “need not delve into to satisfy their reporting obligation under the law.” (Mot. at 8-9) (quoting Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 892). 28 1 ||reported the inaccuracies to the CRA’s [sic], there was no legal dispute with [the creditor] 2 ||GM about his obligation to pay the debt. GM admitted the processing error was their fault 3 |}and GM informed Plaintiff that the error would not be reported to the credit agencies, nor 4 || would it impact his credit report.”) Regalado 1s therefore distinguishable. So, too, are the 5 of circuit cases cited by Plaintiff to the extent they are inconsistent with Carvalho. 6 ||(Opp’n at 8-12.) 7 Finally, while Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his claim that the CRA 8 || Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information under § 9 || 16811, this claim, too, fails. “Although the FCRA's reinvestigation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 10 || 16811, does not on its face require that an actual inaccuracy exist for a plaintiff to state a 11 |}claim, many courts, including our own, have imposed such a requirement.” Carvalho, 629 12 || F.3d at 890 (citing DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61, 67(1st Cir.2008); Dennis 13 ||v. BEH-J, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir.2008) (holding a plaintiff filing suit under 14 || section 16811 must make a “prima facie showing of inaccurate reporting.”’)). 15 Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without leave to amend as any amendment 16 || would be futile. See Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 893 (“Because we hold that Carvalho cannot 17 ||make a prima facie case of inaccurate reporting, we conclude that amendment to include 18 |/other claims requiring inaccuracy would be futile.”) The Clerk of Court shall enter 19 || judgment accordingly and close the case. 20 ||SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: April 17, 2026 22 2 nnn Salo 33 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28