Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00432/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00432-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD C. DENISON JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITIFINANCIAL SERVICING LLC,

and DOES 1–5,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-00432 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

In this action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, plaintiff moves for

leave to amend following an order of dismissal. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiff Ronald Denison received a copy of his “tri-merge report” in March 2015,

containing his credit report data from Equifax Inc., Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and

TransUnion Corp. The information related to Denison’s previous account with Citifinancial

Servicing LLC, a subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc., was allegedly incorrect (Compl. ¶ 22). Denison

immediately called Experian to dispute the information contained in the report and then sent

dispute letters to all three credit reporting agencies. Denison also called defendant Citifinancial

to dispute the information contained in the report. He sent follow-up dispute letters to Equifax,

Case 3:16-cv-00432-WHA Document 32 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Experian, TransUnion, and Citifinancial. In May, August, and September 2015, Denison claims

he received responses from Citifinancial that failed to prove the existence of the alleged debt.

Denison commenced this action in January 2016 alleging violations of the Fair Credit

Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California’s Rosenthal Act. 

Citifinancial promptly moved to dismiss and dismissal was granted. The dismissal order

gave Denison the opportunity to file a motion for leave to amend. He filed the instant motion

and appended a proposed amended complaint reciting one claim for a violation of the FCRA. 

This order follows an opening and an opposition brief as well as oral argument. Denison did

not file a reply brief.

ANALYSIS

Under Rule 15, leave to amend should be freely given absent undue delay, bad faith or

dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, futility of amendment, and prejudice to

the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The general rule that parties

be allowed to amend does not extend to situations where amendment would be an exercise in

futility or where the amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal. Steckman v. Hart

Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). “Futility of amendment can, by itself,

justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845

(9th Cir. 1995). Here, Denison’s proposed amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies

of his first complaint. Thus, amendment would be futile.

The order dismissing Denison’s complaint made clear that to state a claim against

a credit furnisher under the FCRA, he needed to include additional factual allegations. 

Specifically, Denison needed to plead that: (1) a credit reporting inaccuracy existed on his

credit report; (2) he notified the consumer reporting agency that he disputed the reporting as

inaccurate; (3) the consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher of the alleged inaccuracy;

and (4) the furnisher failed to investigate the inaccuracies or otherwise comply with the

requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)–(E). See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg.

Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 3:16-cv-00432-WHA Document 32 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In his proposed amended complaint, Denison simply recites the fourth element of

an FCRA claim and alleges, in a conclusory fashion, that Citifinancial failed to comply. 

Denison alleges only that “CITI [sic], the furnisher, failed to re-investigate [sic] the

inaccuracies or further failed to comply with the requirements in 15 USC [sic]

1681s-2(b)(1)(A)–(E)” (Proposed First Amd. Compl. ¶ 22). This wholly conclusory statement

is merely a formulaic recitation of the fourth element of an FCRA claim that will not do. 

Denison’s proposed amended complaint remains insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. 

Thus, amendment would be futile.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED. 

Final judgment will follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00432-WHA Document 32 Filed 06/23/16 Page 3 of 3