Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02946/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02946-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY KUNTZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 19-cv-02946-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 10 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss only raises one issue – whether a cause of action for 

inadequate notice under Section 1691(d) of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 

U.S.C. § 1691(d), requires an allegation that the plaintiff is a member of a protected class. (See

Dkt. No. 10 (“MTD”) at 2.) The Ninth Circuit has not addressed this issue and courts within the 

Circuit have split on the issue. Compare Harvey v. Bank of Am., N.A., 906 F.Supp.2d 982, 990-91 

(N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Hafiz v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 652 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1045 

(N.D. Cal. 2009) (iterating the elements of an ECOA claim articulated in Hafiz and dismissing 

plaintiff’s ECOA claims, including inadequate notice under Section 1691(d), for failure to allege 

her membership in a protected class) with Banks v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. LA 14-cv06429 JAK, 2015 WL 2215220, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss 

plaintiff’s Section 1691(d) ECOA claim and finding that “neither the borrower’s membership in a 

protected class nor the lender’s discrimination is an element of a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 

1691(d)”). 

The Court finds persuasive and adopts the analysis by those courts that have found that 

membership in a protected class is not an element of a claim of inadequate notice under Section 

Case 4:19-cv-02946-YGR Document 24 Filed 08/21/19 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1691(d) of the ECOA.1 See id.; Vasquez v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 13-cv-02902-JST, 2013 WL 

6001924, at *10-12 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) (finding that the elements of an ECOA claim 

articulated in Hafiz do not apply to the ECOA’s procedural notice and response requirements); 

Green v. Central Mortg. Co., 148 F.Supp.3d 852, 879 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (same); Perryman v. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:16-cv-00643, 2015 WL 444210, at *7 (E.D. Cal. 2016) 

(same); see also Errico v. Pac. Capital Bank, N.A., 753 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 

(citing Dufay v. Bank of Am., 94 F.3d 561 (9th Cir. 1996) (“As a preliminary matter, a procedural 

violation of the notice provisions of ECOA may provide the basis for a cause of action even 

without regard the allegations of discrimination.”); Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 720 F.3d 

1204, 1210 (9th Cir. 2013) (referring to the procedural notice requirements of the ECOA as “[o]ne 

way that ECOA effectuates” the goal of effectuating the broader antidiscrimination purpose of the 

statute). Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant shall file its 

answer to plaintiff’s complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

1

 The Court finds unpersuasive the cases relied upon by defendant. (See MTD at 4; Dkt. 

No. 19 (“Reply”) at 1-2.) In Harvey, the court applied the Hafiz ECOA discrimination elements to 

a notice claim without analysis. See 906 F.Supp.2d at 990-91. In Owens v. Bank of Am., N.A., this 

Court, in a case predating those adopted by the Court above, did the same as the argument 

presented here was not before the Court. See No. 11-cv-4580-YGR, 2012 WL 5340577, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012); No. 11-cv-4580-YGR, Docket Number 99. In Saterbak v. Nat’l Default 

Servicing Corp., the court adopted the approach by the Harvey court without analysis. See No. 

15cv956-WQH-NLS, 2015 WL 5794560, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2015) In Banks v. JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, N.A., although the court did dismiss plaintiff’s Section 1691(d) claim for failure to 

allege membership in a protected class, relying on Hafiz and Harvey, No. CV 14-06429-JAK 

(FFMx), 2014 WL 6476139 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014), the court subsequently found the 

plaintiff’s renewed argument, very similar to the one articulated here, persuasive. See Banks, 2015 

WL 2215220, at *5 (finding that “[o]n further view, [p]laintiff’s argument is persuasive” and that 

“neither the borrower’s membership in a protected class nor the lender’s discrimination is an 

element of a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d)”). 

August 21, 2019

Case 4:19-cv-02946-YGR Document 24 Filed 08/21/19 Page 2 of 2