THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 CYNQUE DARON JONES-ADAMS , CASE NO. C24-1836-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants TransUnion LLC’s and Equifax 17 Information Services LLC’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25) and Plaintiff’s second motion 18 for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 33).1 Having considered the briefing and the relevant 19 record, the Court GRANTS Defendant TransUnion’s motion in whole, DENIES Defendant 20 Equifax’s motion in part, and GRANTS Plaintiff motion solely as to certain claims against 21 Equifax. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 This is a Fair Consumer Reporting Act (“FCRA”) suit for alleged inaccurate reporting, 24
25 1 Plaintiff has lodged multiple motions to amend, (Dkt. Nos. 30, 32, 33), following Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court treats the most recent request (Dkt. No. 33) as the operative 26 motion and STRIKES the preceding ones (Dkt. Nos. 30, 32) as moot. 1 failure to investigate, and failure to timely send a report. (See generally Dkt. No. 33.) The 2 relevant reporting relates to a debt Plaintiff owed to the Washington State Department of Social 3 and Health Services (“DSHS”). (See Dkt. No. 22 at 3.) In June 2022, he owed $1,615.90. (Dkt. 4 No. 33-2 at 33.) In July 2022, Plaintiff brought the balance to $0, (see id.), and the account was 5 closed, (Dkt. No. 33-3 at 21). Defendant credit reporting agencies both reported his June 2022 6 account balance. (Dkt. Nos. 33-2 at 19, 33-3 at 21.) 7 Plaintiff later disputed this credit history and obtained records from Equifax and 8 TransUnion, although he alleges that they failed to timely send him his consumer file(s). (Dkt. 9 No. 22 at 3–5.) Plaintiff further alleges that the reporting companies misreported his June 2022 10 DSHS account status. (Id. at 3) (see also Dkt. No. 33-1 at 4, 6). In a fourth proposed complaint 11 (Dkt. No. 33-1), Plaintiff adds allegations that Equifax also misreported his December 2023 and 12 April 2024 DSHS account status. (Dkt. No. 33-1 at 6.) 13 As a result of these inaccuracies, Plaintiff alleges that his credit rating was affected and 14 that he suffered economic damages. (Dkt. No. 22 at 4.) He brings a variety of federal FCRA 15 claims. (Id. at 5–9.) Plaintiff brings similar claims under Washington state law. (Id. at 10–11.)2 16 Defendants removed the case and now move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (See generally 17 Dkt. Nos. 24, 25). Plaintiff subsequently moved to amend his complaint, (Dkt. No. 33), which 18 TransUnion opposes, (see Dkt. No. 37 at 7–10). 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 A. Legal Standard 21 A party may assert that another has failed to state a claim in an affirmative motion to 22 dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Here, in response to Defendants’ motions, Plaintiff made 23 various factual submissions. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 28-1, 33-2, 33-3.) The Court may consider 24
25 2 Specifically, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff mentions violations of the Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), and state libel law. (Dkt. No. 22 at 26 1, 10, 11.) 1 these factual submissions and convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). On such a motion, the non-moving party has the burden of raising a 3 material issue of fact, or else judgment will be entered against them. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Pro se parties like Plaintiff are given leniency but still must meet 5 basic procedural requirements. Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). 6 Motions to amend a complaint should also be freely granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), but need 7 not be if amendment would be futile. Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 655–56 8 (9th Cir. 2017). 9 The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s claims for false credit reporting, then for failure to 10 timely provide his credit file. 11 B. The June 2022 Credit Reports were Accurate 12 Plaintiff’s FCRA claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e and 1681i have similar elements to 13 their state counterpart. See Cain v. TransUnion LLC, 2006 WL 328409, slip op. at 3 (W.D. 14 Wash. 2006) (comparing 15 U.S.C. § 1681 with RCW 19.182.005). Under federal and state law, 15 a plaintiff must show there was a credit report with inaccurate information. See Carvalho v. 16 Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) (for claims under 15 U.S.C. 17 § 1681i); Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d 749, 755 (9th Cir. 2018) (for claims under 18 15 U.S.C. § 1681e). Even if a credit reporting agency fails to conduct a reasonable investigation 19 or fulfill some other FCRA obligation, in the absence of an inaccuracy a plaintiff’s claim fails as 20 a matter of law. Keller v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2017 WL 130285, slip op. at 5 (N.D. Cal. 21 2017). The purpose of these sections is to protect against misinformation, not abstract procedural 22 harms. See Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 890. Without an inaccuracy, then, Plaintiff’s claim fails. 23 As for the reports on June 2022, Plaintiff’s factual submissions confirm that there is 24 nothing inaccurate about the reporting. He maintained a balance due on his DSHS account in 25 26 1 April, May, and June 2022.3 (Dkt. No. 33-2 at 33.) It was not until July 2022 that he paid the full 2 amount. (Id.) And it was only in July 2022 that the account was closed. Therefore, the 3 undisputed facts contradict his allegations. Further attempts to amend the complaint with respect 4 to June 2022 would be futile. As this is the only inaccuracy alleged against TransUnion, 5 Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant fail as a matter of law.4 6 Defendant Equifax, on the other hand, does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend his 7 complaint, presumably due to the additional inaccuracies alleged against them in later months. 8 Therefore, Plaintiff may amend his complaint but only as to Equifax and only as to the alleged 9 December 2023 and April 2024 inaccuracies. 10 C. The File was Improperly Requested 11 Plaintiff also alleges the Defendants failed to timely send him his requested file. (Dkt. 12 No. 22 at 9) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681g). Credit reporting agencies like Defendants are required to 13 disclose consumers’ files once per 12-month period free of charge, but “only if the request from 14 the consumer is made using the centralized source established.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681j
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 CYNQUE DARON JONES-ADAMS , CASE NO. C24-1836-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants TransUnion LLC’s and Equifax 17 Information Services LLC’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25) and Plaintiff’s second motion 18 for leave to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 33).1 Having considered the briefing and the relevant 19 record, the Court GRANTS Defendant TransUnion’s motion in whole, DENIES Defendant 20 Equifax’s motion in part, and GRANTS Plaintiff motion solely as to certain claims against 21 Equifax. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 This is a Fair Consumer Reporting Act (“FCRA”) suit for alleged inaccurate reporting, 24
25 1 Plaintiff has lodged multiple motions to amend, (Dkt. Nos. 30, 32, 33), following Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court treats the most recent request (Dkt. No. 33) as the operative 26 motion and STRIKES the preceding ones (Dkt. Nos. 30, 32) as moot. 1 failure to investigate, and failure to timely send a report. (See generally Dkt. No. 33.) The 2 relevant reporting relates to a debt Plaintiff owed to the Washington State Department of Social 3 and Health Services (“DSHS”). (See Dkt. No. 22 at 3.) In June 2022, he owed $1,615.90. (Dkt. 4 No. 33-2 at 33.) In July 2022, Plaintiff brought the balance to $0, (see id.), and the account was 5 closed, (Dkt. No. 33-3 at 21). Defendant credit reporting agencies both reported his June 2022 6 account balance. (Dkt. Nos. 33-2 at 19, 33-3 at 21.) 7 Plaintiff later disputed this credit history and obtained records from Equifax and 8 TransUnion, although he alleges that they failed to timely send him his consumer file(s). (Dkt. 9 No. 22 at 3–5.) Plaintiff further alleges that the reporting companies misreported his June 2022 10 DSHS account status. (Id. at 3) (see also Dkt. No. 33-1 at 4, 6). In a fourth proposed complaint 11 (Dkt. No. 33-1), Plaintiff adds allegations that Equifax also misreported his December 2023 and 12 April 2024 DSHS account status. (Dkt. No. 33-1 at 6.) 13 As a result of these inaccuracies, Plaintiff alleges that his credit rating was affected and 14 that he suffered economic damages. (Dkt. No. 22 at 4.) He brings a variety of federal FCRA 15 claims. (Id. at 5–9.) Plaintiff brings similar claims under Washington state law. (Id. at 10–11.)2 16 Defendants removed the case and now move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (See generally 17 Dkt. Nos. 24, 25). Plaintiff subsequently moved to amend his complaint, (Dkt. No. 33), which 18 TransUnion opposes, (see Dkt. No. 37 at 7–10). 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 A. Legal Standard 21 A party may assert that another has failed to state a claim in an affirmative motion to 22 dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Here, in response to Defendants’ motions, Plaintiff made 23 various factual submissions. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 28-1, 33-2, 33-3.) The Court may consider 24
25 2 Specifically, in his amended complaint, Plaintiff mentions violations of the Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), and state libel law. (Dkt. No. 22 at 26 1, 10, 11.) 1 these factual submissions and convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). On such a motion, the non-moving party has the burden of raising a 3 material issue of fact, or else judgment will be entered against them. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 4 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Pro se parties like Plaintiff are given leniency but still must meet 5 basic procedural requirements. Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). 6 Motions to amend a complaint should also be freely granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), but need 7 not be if amendment would be futile. Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 655–56 8 (9th Cir. 2017). 9 The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s claims for false credit reporting, then for failure to 10 timely provide his credit file. 11 B. The June 2022 Credit Reports were Accurate 12 Plaintiff’s FCRA claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e and 1681i have similar elements to 13 their state counterpart. See Cain v. TransUnion LLC, 2006 WL 328409, slip op. at 3 (W.D. 14 Wash. 2006) (comparing 15 U.S.C. § 1681 with RCW 19.182.005). Under federal and state law, 15 a plaintiff must show there was a credit report with inaccurate information. See Carvalho v. 16 Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) (for claims under 15 U.S.C. 17 § 1681i); Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d 749, 755 (9th Cir. 2018) (for claims under 18 15 U.S.C. § 1681e). Even if a credit reporting agency fails to conduct a reasonable investigation 19 or fulfill some other FCRA obligation, in the absence of an inaccuracy a plaintiff’s claim fails as 20 a matter of law. Keller v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2017 WL 130285, slip op. at 5 (N.D. Cal. 21 2017). The purpose of these sections is to protect against misinformation, not abstract procedural 22 harms. See Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 890. Without an inaccuracy, then, Plaintiff’s claim fails. 23 As for the reports on June 2022, Plaintiff’s factual submissions confirm that there is 24 nothing inaccurate about the reporting. He maintained a balance due on his DSHS account in 25 26 1 April, May, and June 2022.3 (Dkt. No. 33-2 at 33.) It was not until July 2022 that he paid the full 2 amount. (Id.) And it was only in July 2022 that the account was closed. Therefore, the 3 undisputed facts contradict his allegations. Further attempts to amend the complaint with respect 4 to June 2022 would be futile. As this is the only inaccuracy alleged against TransUnion, 5 Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant fail as a matter of law.4 6 Defendant Equifax, on the other hand, does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend his 7 complaint, presumably due to the additional inaccuracies alleged against them in later months. 8 Therefore, Plaintiff may amend his complaint but only as to Equifax and only as to the alleged 9 December 2023 and April 2024 inaccuracies. 10 C. The File was Improperly Requested 11 Plaintiff also alleges the Defendants failed to timely send him his requested file. (Dkt. 12 No. 22 at 9) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681g). Credit reporting agencies like Defendants are required to 13 disclose consumers’ files once per 12-month period free of charge, but “only if the request from 14 the consumer is made using the centralized source established.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681j(a)(1)(A–B). 15 Plaintiff does not dispute that the centralized source is a website and phone number. (See Dkt. 16 No. 25 at 7.) But Plaintiff did not utilize these resources. Instead, he invoked his right to free 17 disclosure against both Defendants by certified mail. (Dkt. Nos. 33-2 at 2–3, 33-3 at 2–3.) 18 Therefore, he did not comply with the statutory requirements and, for this reason, this claim 19 against both Defendants fails as a matter of law.
20 3 Plaintiff admits he was delinquent but indicates that he did not believe this account would be 21 collected on or considered delinquent by DSHS. (Dkt. No. 38 at 2–3.) These arguments about what Plaintiff did or did not expect from DSHS have no relevance to whether Defendants’ June 22 2022 reporting was accurate. 4 This also includes Plaintiff’s claims against TransUnion under Washington’s CPA and libel 23 law. An action for libel requires falsity. See Mark v. Seattle Times, 635 P.3d 1081, 1088 (Wash. 24 1981). Again, Plaintiff cannot show the June 2022 reporting was false. And Plaintiff’s CPA claim against TransUnion depends upon the validity of other claims. (See Dkt. No. 22 at 11) (see 25 also RCW 19.182.150) (explaining that a violation of state FCRA is a violation of the state CPA). Because none of his other claims withstand scrutiny, there is nothing left to support 26 Plaintiff’s CPA claim. 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant TransUnion’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 24) is 3 GRANTED. All claims against TransUnion are DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendant 4 Equifax’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s 5 claim against Equifax for failure to timely send a report is DISMISSED with prejudice. 6 Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED in part as to the remaining 7 claims against Equifax for alleged December 2023 and April 2024 inaccuracies, but it is 8 DENIED as to the claims dismissed. 9 10 DATED this 11th day of February 2025. A 11 12 13 John C. Coughenour 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26