Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02743/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02743-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

TODD CHRISTOPHER WHITE, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC,

ET AL., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 19-cv-02743-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 69 

This is the second round of briefing on a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Capital One 

Bank (USA), N.A. (“Capital One”)1

 as to the complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Todd Christopher 

White. The Court granted Capital One’s prior motion to dismiss the initial complaint but afforded 

plaintiff leave to amend as to all claims. Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint 

(“FAC”), which, like the initial complaint, alleges three causes of action arising under the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”); the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”); and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business 

and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”). Capital One again moves to dismiss. 

Having carefully considered the pleadings in this action and the papers submitted, and for 

the reasons set forth below, the Court finds as follows:2

1

 Defendant’s motion notes that although plaintiff names “Capital One” as a defendant, the 

correct entity name is Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. 

2

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 

previously vacated the hearing on the motion. (Dkt. No. 75.) 

Case 4:19-cv-02743-YGR Document 76 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 5
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

1. Fair Credit Reporting Act 

As stated in the Court’s order on the first motion to dismiss, to bring a claim against a 

furnisher of information to a credit reporting agency that is capable of surviving a motion to 

dismiss, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of inaccurate reporting, that the furnisher had 

notice of the dispute, and that plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the inaccurate reporting. 

Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Dennis v. BEH1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066, 1069 (describing what may constitute actual damages under the FCRA). 

The Court previously found that plaintiff’s FCRA claim failed because he did not provide 

sufficient allegations about the purported inaccuracy of the information Capital One furnished for 

plaintiff’s credit reports or the nature of any harm plaintiff suffered as a result of Capital One’s 

conduct. The Court also noted that any amended complaint should clarify whether and how 

Capital One was put on notice of a dispute related to inaccurate reporting of plaintiff’s debt. 

The Court finds that, with respect to the FCRA claim, the FAC suffers from the same 

defects as the initial complaint. That is, plaintiff re-alleges that Equifax’s consumer reports 

included inaccurate information regarding a purported bankruptcy discharge, and that because of 

the inaccurate reporting, plaintiff was required to pay money to obtain copies of consumer reports 

for further review and inspection. See FAC ¶¶ 10, 14. However, these appear to be the only 

factual allegations even tangentially related to credit reporting. As with the initial complaint, the 

FAC does not allege any connection between the Capital One debt and the bankruptcy reporting, 

nor does he offer any allegation as to why the Capital One debt itself may be inaccurately 

reported. In addition, plaintiff does not allege that Capital One was on notice of a dispute related 

to inaccurate reporting.3

 Accordingly, Capital One’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FCRA claim is granted. Further, 

3

 Plaintiff’s opposition does not provide any additional clarity about the nature of the 

claim. In it, plaintiff avers that “Capital One report[ed] inaccurate information to Equifax for a 

one year period starting from August 19, 2016 until August 16, 2018” and “caused Portfolio 

Recovery [] to inaccurately report similar information to the credit bureaus during a 6 month 

period between[] November 16, 2018 and May 17, 2019.” To support these assertions, plaintiff 

attaches Equifax credit reports from this period. However, as with the FAC, the opposition does 

not point to any facts to support these conclusory allegations, nor can the Court discern any 

inaccuracies in the offered credit reports. 

Case 4:19-cv-02743-YGR Document 76 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

because plaintiff’s allegations as to the FCRA claim have not substantively changed from the 

initial complaint to the FAC, the Court finds that further amendment would be futile. As such, the 

claim is dismissed without leave to amend. 

2. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

As this Court has previously discussed, to state an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must allege 

facts establishing that: “(1) [the] plaintiff has been the object of collection activity arising from a 

consumer debt; (2) the defendant qualifies as a ‘debt collector’ under the FDCPA; and (3) the 

defendant has engaged in a prohibited act or has failed to perform a requirement imposed by the 

FDCPA.” Ellis v. Phillips & Cohen Assocs., Ltd., No. 5:14-cv-05539-EJD, 2016 WL 566981, at 

*3 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2016) (quoting Dang v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-05036 EJD, 2012 

WL 762329, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2012)). The Court previously dismissed the FDCPA claim 

because plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts showing that Capital One was a “debt collector” 

engaged in prohibited conduct under the statute. 

 The FAC, unlike the initial complaint, alleges that Capital One is a “debt collector” who, 

in connection with Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC (“Portfolio Recovery”), “makes prohibited 

communications to putative debtors during pendency of a [] Chapter 7 bankruptcy stay in violation 

of” the FDCPA. Plaintiff also has attached to the FAC correspondence, including letters and 

statements, purportedly sent to plaintiff from Capital One between 2016 and 2019. 

 These allegations, namely, that Capital One is a “debt collector” that engaged in debt 

collection activities, cure some of the deficiencies in the initial complaint. However, plaintiff still 

does not state a plausible claim for relief based on Capital One’s conduct because he has not 

alleged any prohibited collection activity. Specifically, plaintiff does not state facts sufficient to 

establish the “pendency of a [] Chapter 7 bankruptcy stay” during which Capital One sent the 

relevant correspondence to plaintiff. Instead, plaintiff alleges that he filed a voluntary petition in 

bankruptcy court, but he concedes that no action actually commenced due to substantial defects in 

initiation paperwork. Without the commencement of a bankruptcy, an automatic stay would not 

have issued. Further, the materials submitted show the bankruptcy proceedings concluding in 

2015, before the communications beginning in 2015. Plaintiff also makes numerous allegations 

Case 4:19-cv-02743-YGR Document 76 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 5
4 

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

concerning bankruptcy proceedings generally, see FAC ¶ 14, but does not tie any of these 

allegations to this case, much less to Capital One specifically.4 Given that plaintiff provided 

information for one bankruptcy proceeding, it is logical to conclude that none exists for the 

relevant time period. 

 As such, plaintiff’s FDCPA claim fails. Moreover, because further amendment would be 

futile, the Court grants Capital One’s motion to dismiss this claim without leave to amend. 

3. California’s Unfair Competition Law 

Insofar as plaintiff’s claim for violation of the UCL based on the same alleged conduct as 

the FCRA or FDCPA claims, the claim fails for the reasons discussed herein. To the extent the 

UCL claim is purportedly based on other conduct, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts that 

Capital One engaged in “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice” or “unfair, 

deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” The UCL claim is therefore dismissed without 

leave to amend. 

***** 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Capital One’s motion to dismiss the First 

Amended Complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Accordingly, Capital One is hereby 

DISMISSED from this case. 

Further, the Court notes that Portfolio Recovery, the remaining defendant in this case, has 

answered the initial complaint but not the FAC. As such, Portfolio Recovery shall respond to the 

FAC no later than February 28, 2020. Portfolio Recovery may not, however, raise any arguments 

in its response that could have been raised previously. 

A Case Management Conference shall be set for Monday, March 23, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in 

the Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland in Courtroom 1. 

4

 The opposition vaguely asserts that plaintiff “used Portfolio [Recovery] to attempt to 

collect an improper debt or engaged in any related conduct prohibited by the FDCPA,” as well as 

“itself engag[ing] in unlawful debt collection.” However, the “demand letters” attached to the 

opposition, which were purportedly sent to plaintiff from Capital One, were sent in response to 

requests from plaintiff, and moreover, plaintiff does not identify what aspect of the letters violated 

the FDCPA. 

Case 4:19-cv-02743-YGR Document 76 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 5
5 

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

In addition, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR Local Rule 2-3, the Court hereby 

REFERS this action to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Unit for a telephone conference 

to assess this case’s suitability for court-sponsored mediation, settlement conference, early neutral 

evaluation, or other ADR methods. The parties shall participate in a telephone conference, to be 

scheduled by the ADR Unit as soon as possible. The ADR Unit will notify the parties of the date 

and time the telephone conference will be held. After the telephone conference, the ADR Unit 

will advise the Court of its recommendation for further ADR proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 18, 2020 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-02743-YGR Document 76 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 5