Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00726/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00726-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC R. DREW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00726 SI

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO CONFORM

TO PROOF OR TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF

EXISTING COMPLAINT

At trial on Thursday, July 22, 2010, plaintiff attempted to introduce certain evidence in support

of a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2(a). Equifax objected on the ground that this trial solely concerns

a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i. Plaintiff has now moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(b), to amend his complaint to add a claim under § 1681c-2(a) in order to conform to the proof at trial,

or alternatively to clarify that his existing complaint already includes a claim under § 1681c-2(a). 

15 U.S.C. § 1681c-2(a) requires credit reporting agencies to “block the reporting of any

information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an

alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of” certain

documents from the consumer. As plaintiff points out, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i similarly requires credit

reporting agencies to take certain actions within 30 days of the receipt of a consumer dispute, but

pertains to disputes that do not expressly arise from identity theft. Thus, a consumer dispute will trigger

duties under either § 1681c-2(a) or § 1681i, depending on whether it includes notice of identity theft.

The Court agrees with plaintiff that the operative version of the complaint encompasses a claim

under § 1681c-2(a). Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that he gave notice to Equifax that certain

information in his credit file was the result of identity theft and that Equifax “failed to block” the

Case 3:07-cv-00726-SI Document 436 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 2
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

fraudulent information. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 202-06. This is sufficient to state a claim under

§ 1681c-2(a) even though plaintiff did not specifically name that section in the complaint. 

Neither Equifax nor any other defendant previously in this case filed any motion with respect

to the § 1681c-2(a) claim, and the claim has not been asserted by plaintiff until this juncture.

Nonetheless, it does not appear to the Court that inclusion of a claim under § 1681c-2(a) will prejudice

Equifax. If Equifax disagrees and wishes to assert grounds for prejudice, it must do so no later than

5:00 p.m. today. In the event Equifax does not respond by that time, the Court will grant plaintiff’s

motion and issue a ruling clarifying that the complaint encompasses a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c2(a). The parties will also be directed to ensure that the jury instructions reflect the existence of this

claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00726-SI Document 436 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2