Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08169/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08169-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Christine Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Midland Funding LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08169-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. have 

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Christine Baker’s First Amended Complaint pursuant 

to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 71. The motion is fully 

briefed. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion. 

I. Background. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants “provided false and misleading information to the 

credit bureaus” and “verified incorrect information with credit bureau Equifax after [she] 

disputed with Equifax directly.” Doc. 70, ¶ 7. She alleges that Defendants reported 

several pieces of incorrect information, including incorrect balances, and that her 

accounts were “open” instead of “revolving.” Id., ¶ 8. She further alleges that 

Defendants “willfully and negligently failed to correct the information furnished to 

Equifax in violation of FCRA § 1681s-2(b).” Id., ¶ 21. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim to relief under Rule 

12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the light 

Case 3:13-cv-08169-SPL Document 92 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the 

assumption of truth, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009), and therefore are 

insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, In re Cutera Sec. 

Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the 

complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This plausibility standard “is not 

akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

556). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged B but it has not ‘show[n]’ B ‘that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

III. Analysis. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to state a claim because she does not allege 

that credit bureaus contacted them regarding Plaintiff’s dispute. Doc. 71 at 6. 

Defendants cite Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d. 1177, 1180 (E.D. Cal. 2005), for the 

proposition that “if a Plaintiff fails to allege that he contacted the credit agencies and that 

the credit reporting agencies contacted the furnisher, the complaint is subject to a motion 

to dismiss the FCRA claim against the furnisher.” Id. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has 

not specified what date she contacted the credit reporting agency, nor that any credit 

reporting agency contacted Defendants in response to her dispute. Doc. 71 at 6. They 

argue that Plaintiff “cannot show that [Defendants] failed to reasonably respond to a 

notice of dispute without demonstrating what the notice said about the dispute or when it 

was sent.” Id. at 7. 

 Plaintiff responds that her complaint states several times that she disputed 

information with Equifax and that the disputed information was subsequently verified by 

Defendants. Doc. 81 at 2. In response to Defendants argument that Plaintiff has failed to 

allege any facts about the specific contents of communications between Equifax and 

Case 3:13-cv-08169-SPL Document 92 Filed 05/28/14 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

Defendants, Plaintiff notes that she “cannot show that [Defendants] failed to reasonably 

respond to a notice of dispute, demonstrate what the notice said about the dispute or when 

it was sent prior to conducting discovery.” Id. 

 Plaintiff need not plead every detail of the transaction in order to state a claim. 

Her allegation that Defendants verified incorrect information to Equifax necessarily 

implies that Defendants were contacted by Equifax about the dispute. Defendants also 

argue that Plaintiff cannot show that they failed to reasonably respond to a notice of 

dispute, but Plaintiff’s complaint does not make such an allegation. Rather, Plaintiff 

alleges that she notified Equifax that she disputed information reported by Defendants 

and, in response, Defendants verified incorrect information. These allegations are 

sufficient to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). 

 Defendants also argue that “Plaintiff’s claims for statutory and punitive damages 

are unavailable” because she “has not alleged that [Defendants] intentionally violated a 

duty to conduct a reasonable investigation.” Doc. 71 at 8 (emphasis original). The Court 

disagrees. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants willfully verified incorrect information in 

violation of § 1681s-2(b). Punitive and statutory damages are available for willful failure 

to comply with requirements imposed by the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 71) is denied. 

 Dated this 28th day of May, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08169-SPL Document 92 Filed 05/28/14 Page 3 of 3