Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01207-14/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL ROYBAL; VIDA ROYBAL,

2:05-CV-1207-MCE-KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EQUIFAX; TRANS UNION;

EXPERIAN; RICKENBACKER;

MEDAMERICA; CITY TOWING BODY

SHOP, INC.; SEARS; and DOES 1

through 50,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiffs Daniel and Vida

Roybal (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Equifax, Transunion, Experian,

Rickenbacker, Medamerica, City Towing Body Shop, Inc. and Sears

violated both state and federal consumer protection laws by

furnishing and reporting erroneous credit information on

Plaintiffs’ credit report. A number of the foregoing claims have

been adjudicated by this Court through earlier proceedings.

///

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 106 Filed 08/15/06 Page 1 of 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Specifically, with respect to Defendant furnisher of credit

Medamerica, Inc. (“Medamerica”), the Court has dismissed all

claims against it save Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action for the

alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 

Medamerica now moves to dismiss that remaining claim as well as a

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim Plaintiffs

have reasserted in their First Amended Complaint. Medamerica

asserts that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, 1

Medamerica’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

BACKGROUND

The Court has previously set forth a factual background for

this action in its Order of October 19, 2005, which is

incorporated by reference and need not be reproduced herein. 

Mem. & Order 2-3, October 19, 2005.

STANDARD

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under

Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted

as true and construed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,

337-38 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 106 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 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

3

A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim

“‘unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of [his or] her claim that would entitle [him

or] her to relief.’” Yamaguchi v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 109

F.3d 1475, 1480 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Lewis v. Tel. Employees

Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537, 1545 (9th Cir. 1996)).

If the court grants a motion to dismiss a complaint, it must

then decide whether to grant leave to amend. The court should

"freely give[]" leave to amend when there is no "undue delay, bad

faith[,] dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of . . . the amendment,

[or] futility of the amendment. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a);

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Generally, leave to

amend is only denied when it is clear that the deficiencies of

the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow

Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS

1. Fair Credit Reporting Act

As this Court explained in its October 19, 2005, and April

4, 2006, Orders, under the FCRA a disputatious consumer may only

bring a private right of action against a furnisher of credit if

he notifies the credit reporting agency (“CRA”) in the first

instance who, in turn, must notify the furnisher of credit. It

is only then that an FCRA cause of action arises against the

furnisher of credit. See Mem. & Order, October 19, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 106 Filed 08/15/06 Page 3 of 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

In Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, they request leave 2

to reassert their FCRA claim against Defendant Rickenbacker,

leave to amend having expired long ago. Plaintiffs’ bald request

is groundless and hereby denied.

4

The Court has twice dismissed Plaintiffs’ FCRA claims

against the Defendant furnishers of credit. In both instances,

the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint so as

to properly plead facts sufficient to support their FCRA claim. 

Plaintiffs elected to forego their opportunity to amend to cure

this defect as against Defendant Rickenbacker. Plaintiffs, 2

however, did file an Amended Complaint as against Medamerica. 

See Pl.s First Amended Compl., April 24, 2006. The amendment

does nothing to cure the foregoing defect. Specifically,

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint does not aver that Medamerica

was notified of the allegedly erroneous credit entries by the

CRAs triggering a private right of action under the FCRA. 

Accordingly, no FCRA claim can be stated as against them. 

In this instance, leave to amend should be granted because

the deficiencies of the Complaint can be cured. The Court

cautions, however, that should Plaintiffs again fail to properly

allege an FCRA claim against Medamerica, the Court will consider

further leave to amend futile. Accordingly, Medamerica’s Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FCRA claim is granted with leave to amend.

2. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim against Medamerica was dismissed

without leave to amend as barred by the statute of limitations. 

See Mem. & Order, May 18, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 106 Filed 08/15/06 Page 4 of 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

5

To the extent Plaintiffs attempt to revive this claim in their

First Amended Complaint, the Court reaffirms its earlier ruling

dismissing this claim as time barred.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Medamerica’s Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FCRA claim is granted with leave to amend. 

In addition, the Court reaffirms its earlier dismissal of

Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim as time barred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 106 Filed 08/15/06 Page 5 of 5