Cao v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-02666
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KAI CAO, Case No. 24-cv-02666-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 27 10 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC’s motion to 14 dismiss. Dkt. No. 27. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral 15 argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed 16 below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff Kai Cao alleges that he is a victim of identity theft. See Dkt. No. 20 (“FAC”) at 19 ¶ 26. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that in approximately December 2020 an unknown 20 individual obtained Plaintiff’s Bank of America credit card and made over $6,000 in unauthorized 21 purchases at Costco while Plaintiff was out of the country. See id. at ¶¶ 1–3, 27–32. Although 22 Plaintiff notified the bank of the fraudulent transactions, Plaintiff contends that Bank of America 23 denied his fraud claim and has continued to report the credit card balance to Consumer Reporting 24 Agencies. See id. at ¶¶ 4–5, 36–44, 47–49, 51. Bank of America, for its part, contends that the 25 Costco purchases were made by someone “authorized” to use Plaintiff’s credit card. See, e.g., id. 26 at ¶¶ 36, 47. Plaintiff states that beginning in September 2021 he learned that Defendant was 27 reporting the allegedly fraudulent credit card balance on Plaintiff’s credit report. See id. at ¶¶ 45, 1 Defendant has continued to report the fraudulent credit card balance. See id. at ¶¶ 6–7, 45, 52–55. 2 Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of the Fair Credit 3 Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. and the California Consumer Credit 4 Reporting Act (“CCCRA”), Cal. Civil Code §§ 1785.14 et seq. See id. at ¶¶ 62–106. Defendant 5 has moved to dismiss certain causes of action in the amended complaint. Dkt. No. 27. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain 8 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 9 defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be 10 granted under Rule 12(b)(6). “Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the 11 complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” 12 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 13 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff need only plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 14 on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible 15 when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 16 the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 17 In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts “accept factual allegations in the 18 complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 19 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, 20 courts do not “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of 21 fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 22 2008) (quoting Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001)). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Defendant moves to dismiss Counts I and VII of the amended complaint, violations of 25 § 1681e(b) of the FCRA and § 1785.14(b) of the CCCRA. Dkt. No. 27. Under § 1681e(b),

26 Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible 27 accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom 1 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (emphasis added); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.14(b) (same). A “consumer 2 report,” in turn, is one that a consumer reporting agency “issues to third parties for certain 3 qualifying purposes.” See Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d 749, 755, n.3 (9th Cir. 4 2018) (emphasis added). The parties appear to agree that to state a claim under these provisions of 5 the FCRA and CCRA, Plaintiff must allege that Defendant prepared a consumer report containing 6 inaccurate information, and that it furnished the report to a third party. See id.; cf. TransUnion 7 LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 435–39 (2021) (“The mere presence of an inaccuracy in an internal 8 credit file, if it is not disclosed to a third party, causes no concrete harm [for purposes of Article III 9 standing].”). The parties disagree, however, as to whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged this. 10 Compare Dkt. No. 27 at 7, with Dkt. No. 31 at 3. 11 The amended complaint states: “Within the five years previous to the filing of this 12 Complaint, Defendant Equifax prepared and distributed one or more consumer reports . . . 13 pertaining to Plaintiff that contained misleading or inaccurate information related to Plaintiff’s 14 account held by Bank of America.” See FAC at ¶ 56. Defendant urges that Plaintiff must more 15 specifically identify when and to whom such reports were provided. See Dkt. No. 27 at 7. 16 Plaintiff responds that such detail is unnecessary, and that there were several “hard and soft 17 inquiries” on Plaintiff’s credit reports within the applicable statute of limitations. See Dkt. No. 31 18 at 1, 3. As currently alleged, however, it is not clear that Defendant ever provided an inaccurate 19 consumer report to a third party or what the purportedly inaccurate information was. Defendant 20 should not have to speculate about the factual basis for Plaintiff’s causes of action or whether they 21 fall within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has indicated that he can provide more detail, see id., 22 and he should do so. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 27. At this stage in the litigation, 25 the Court cannot say that amendment would be futile. Plaintiff may therefore file an amended 26 complaint within 21 days of the date of this order. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that he should 27 fully plead his best case in any amended complaint as the Court is unlikely to grant further leave 1 The Court further SETS case a case management conference on March 18, 2025, at 2:00 2 || p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and 3 || media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys 4 || and pro se litigants appearing for the case management conference are required to join at least 15 5 minutes before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and 6 || audio capabilities. The parties are further DIRECTED to file a joint case management statement 7 by March 11, 2025. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: — 1/23/2025 10 Abepured 5 Mb). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. I United States District Judge a 12

© 15 16

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28