Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04622/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04622-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JACK WATTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT SERVICE, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04622-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT 

SERVICE, INC.’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF 33]

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on July 7, 2016, and discussed herein, 

the unopposed motion to dismiss brought by Defendant Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. 

(“Diversified”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND.

Plaintiff asserts claims under (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 

1681s-2(b); (2) the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRA”), Cal. Civ. 

Code § 1785.25(a); and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

17200.

With respect Claim 1, asserted under the FCRA, Plaintiff “is required to plead the 

following four elements to state a claim against a credit furnisher: (1) a credit reporting inaccuracy 

existed on plaintiff’s credit report; (2) plaintiff notified the consumer reporting agency that 

plaintiff disputed the reporting as inaccurate; (3) the consumer reporting agency notified the 

furnisher of the alleged inaccurate information of the dispute; and (4) the furnisher failed to 

investigate the inaccuracies or further failed to comply with the requirements in 15 U.S.C. 1681s2(b) (1)(A)-(E).” Denison v. Citifinancial Servicing LLC, No. C 16-00432 WHA, 2016 WL 

1718220, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2016). While Plaintiff alleges generally that he “seeks redress 

for the unlawful and deceptive practices committed by the Defendants in connection with their 

Case 5:15-cv-04622-BLF Document 41 Filed 07/11/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

inaccurate reporting of Plaintiff’s debt included in Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy,” Compl. ¶ 1, 

Plaintiff does not identify any particular debt that was reported by Diversified, let alone facts 

showing that the reporting of such debt was inaccurate, Compl. ¶¶ 5-9. Plaintiff alleges only that 

following his Chapter 7 discharge, he ordered his credit reports and “noticed a misleading and or 

inaccurate account status, and or listing of the accounts as open, in collections, and or charged off 

rather than discharged in Bankruptcy.” Compl. ¶¶ 5-6. Those allegations are inadequate to state a 

claim under the FCRA.

Diversified asks the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy filings showing 

that at the time Plaintiff filed his Chapter 7 petition, the balance on his Diversified account was $0. 

See Def.’s Req. for Judicial Notice, ECF 33-1. Diversified argues that because Plaintiff did not 

owe Diversified a debt at the time he filed his petition, no such debt could have been discharged in 

the bankruptcy. Diversified’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, 

LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We may take judicial notice of 

court filings and other matters of public record.”). However, because the complaint is totally 

devoid of any factual allegations regarding Diversified’s alleged inaccurate reporting, it is not 

clear that the Diversified account referenced in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy filings is the same 

Diversified account upon which the present lawsuit is based. At the hearing on Diversified’s 

motion, Plaintiff’s counsel assured the Court that he would determine whether the accounts were 

are the same and would not continue to assert claims against Diversified if doing so would be 

frivolous.

With respect to Claim 2, asserted under the CCRA, the CCRA provides that “[a] person 

shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit 

reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.” 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). Again, Plaintiff has neither identified what information Diversified 

provided to a consumer reporting agency nor alleged facts showing that any such information was 

incomplete or inaccurate. 

With respect to Claim 3, asserted under the UCL, Plaintiff’s counsel stated at the hearing

that Plaintiff would omit that claim from any amended pleading.

Case 5:15-cv-04622-BLF Document 41 Filed 07/11/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Diversified’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to 

Claims 1 and 2 and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to Claim 3;

(2) Leave to amend is limited to the claims addressed in this order; Plaintiff may not 

add additional claims or parties without express leave of the Court; and

(3) Any amended pleading shall be filed on or before July 29, 2016.

Dated: July 11, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04622-BLF Document 41 Filed 07/11/16 Page 3 of 3