Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in Ramon Beltran’s action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court held that Plaintiff adequately alleged Article III standing based on claimed confusion from listing two consumer reporting agencies, but failed to plausibly allege an FCRA violation or a willful violation because the contact information was not extraneous under Ninth Circuit precedent. The court dismissed the second amended complaint without leave to amend and ordered the case closed.
Holdings
- Plaintiff failed to allege an injury in fact based on the disclosure's lack of capital letters, lack of boldface, or inclusion of an acknowledgment of receipt because he did not allege what confused him or how those features caused confusion or affected his conduct.
- Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded Article III standing for his theory that listing contact information for two consumer reporting agencies rendered the disclosure confusing.
- The inclusion of contact information for two consumer reporting agencies did not constitute extraneous information and did not violate the FCRA's standalone-disclosure requirement.
- Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a willful FCRA violation because the alleged inclusion of two consumer reporting agencies' contact information was not objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
- Further leave to amend was denied because amendment would be futile.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged Article III standing based on alleged defects in the FCRA employment-background-check disclosure.
- Whether listing the contact information of two consumer reporting agencies constituted extraneous information that violated the FCRA's standalone-disclosure requirement.
- Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Defendants willfully violated the FCRA.
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted further leave to amend.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (31)
- Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Dworkin v. Hustler Mag. Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
- Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Gregg v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52, 57, 69-70 (2007)(followed)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 334-35, 339, 341 (2016)(followed)
- Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 953 F.3d 1082, 1086-87, 1090 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 499-506 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 31.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.