Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02485/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02485-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
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

1Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is now dismissed from the action.

2Defendant Trans Union LLC’s filed a Joinder to AmeriCredit’s Motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Sheryl Moulton,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., et al,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 04-02485 JW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION

FOR A MORE DEFINITE

STATEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sheryl Moulton (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended and Supplemental Complaint

(“FAC”) against Defendants AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., doing business in California as

ACF Financial Services, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Citibank

(South Dakota), N.A. (collectively “Defendants”),1 alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”). Presently before this Court is a motion filed by Defendant

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (“AmeriCredit”)2 seeking a dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim against AmeriCredit under FCRA. Alternatively, Defendants

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 8
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

3Consumer reporting agencies include Experian Information Solutions, Trans Union, LLC, and

Equifax Information Services, LLC.

4Plaintiff’s responses to AmeriCredit’s first set of interrogatories identified the alleged

inaccurate information furnished to the CRAs. Specifically, “Plaintiff states that AmeriCredit appears

to have furnished the erroneous information about her car loan account being then currently past due,

as reported in her credit reports. . . .” (Plf.’s Opp’n to Mtn. to Dismiss at 7.)

2

moves for a more definite statement pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e) on the ground that the FAC does

not identify any inaccurate information AmeriCredit allegedly furnished. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7-1(b), the Court took the motion under submission based on the papers filed to date. For the reasons

set forth below, Defendant AmeriCredit’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for a More

Definite Statement is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (“FAC”)

alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. As to

AmeriCredit, Plaintiff alleges that AmeriCredit violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) for failing to review

relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agencies (“CRA”)3 and to conduct a

reasonable investigation. Plaintiff further alleges that AmeriCredit notified the CRAs that the

“erroneous credit information reported with respect to Plaintiff was correct.” (First Am. Compl. at

6.) 

According to the FAC, on April 2, 2003, Plaintiff made a final payment and closed the account

she had with AmeriCredit, who financed the purchase of Plaintiff’s automobile. She later discovered

in February 2004 that her closed AmeriCredit account was not being reported accurately and

completely on her credit reports.4 On February 16, 2004 and March 2, 2004, Plaintiff wrote to the

CRAs notifying them of the reporting mistakes with respect to the AmeriCredit account, who then

allegedly notified AmeriCredit of Plaintiff’s dispute with the account. Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that

AmeriCredit failed to review the information provided by the CRAs and to conduct a reasonable

investigation. Plaintiff contends that even following an investigation, AmeriCredit allegedly continued

to report inaccurate and incomplete information concerning Plaintiff’s account to the CRAs. 

Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief for harm allegedly

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 8
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

3

caused by the “erroneous and incomplete” information on her credit record. Currently before this

Court is Defendant AmeriCredit’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), or in the alternative,

Motion for a More Definite Statement under Rule 12(e). AmeriCredit seeks dismissal on the basis

that the allegations in the FAC do not plead sufficient facts to state a claim against AmeriCredit. 

Alternatively, AmeriCredit moves for a more definite statement on the basis that the FAC does not

identify “the information AmeriCredit allegedly furnished about which she complaints [sic], let alone

that such information was incomplete or inaccurate.” (Mtn. to Dismiss at 1.) 

III. STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss 

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state claim

upon which relief can be granted. In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, this Court must presume all

factual allegations of the complaint as true and must construe said allegations in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Western Reserve Oil & Gas Co. v. New, 765 F.2d 1428, 1430 (9th Cir.

1985). Any existing ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the pleading. Walling v. Beverly

Enterprises, 476 F.2d 393, 396 (9th Cir. 1973). However, mere conclusory allegations couched in

factual allegations are not sufficient to state a cause of action. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286

(1986). In Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), the Supreme Court set forth the strict standard for

granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must not be granted

"unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief." Id. at 45-46. Dismissal can be based on either a “(1) lack of a

cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim." Robertson v. Dean

Witter Reynolds Co., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). As the Ninth Circuit has observed, "The

[Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely

granted." Gilligan v. Jamco Develop. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997).

B. Motion For More Definite Statement

A motion for a more definite statement, like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim are

viewed with disfavor, and are rarely granted. Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging. Inc., 189 F.R.D.

575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999). "[T]he proper test in evaluating a motion under Rule 12(e) is whether the

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 3 of 8
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

4

complaint provides the defendant with a sufficient basis to frame his responsive pleadings." Federal

Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio, 695 F.Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (citing Famolare

Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981)). Generally, the Court will

require a more definite statement only when the pleading is "so vague or ambiguous that the opposing

party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to himself."

Cellars v. Pacific Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal.,1999) (quoting Delta Educ.,

Inc. v. Langlois, 719 F.Supp. 42, 50 (D.N.H.1989) and 5A CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER,

FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1376).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Section 1681s-2 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Does Not Require Plaintiff to Allege

With Specificity.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 1681s-2(b), Plaintiff claims that after Defendant AmeriCredit received

notice of the disputed information on her credit record from the CRAs, they “failed in their duties to

review all relevant information and conduct a reasonable investigation.” (Opp’n at 3.) AmeriCredit

asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Plaintiff

“fails to plead or identify the disputed information AmeriCredit furnished, let alone that such

information was inaccurate of incomplete.” (Mtn. to Dismiss at 1.) 

In 1971, Congress enacted 15 U.S.C § 1681, commonly referred to as the Federal Fair Credit

Reporting Act, to require that CRAs “adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce

for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and

equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy relevancy, and proper

utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of [the act].” § 1681(b). Although

“Congress did not want furnishers of credit information exposed to suit by any and every consumer

dissatisfied with the credit information furnished,” section 1681s-2(b) provides a private right of

action to injured consumers against a furnisher of information. Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage

Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2002). After a CRA receives notice of a dispute from a

consumer with respect to the completeness or accuracy of information contained in the consumer’s

file, the CRA has a duty to promptly notify the furnisher of information of the dispute, providing all

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 4 of 8
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

5Defendant AmeriCredit cites cases which only stand for the proposition that “a consumer must

sufficiently allege that a credit reporting agency prepared a report containing ‘inaccurate’

information.” Henson v. CSC Credit Serv., Inc.,29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994); See also Thomas v.

Trans Union LLC, 197 197 F.Supp.2d 1233 (D.Or. 2002) (“The elements of a claim for failure to

5

relevant information regarding the dispute. § 1681i-(a)(2)(A). Thereafter, the furnisher has a duty to

conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information, to review all relevant

information provided by the CRA, and to report the findings to the CRA. § 1681s2-(b). If the

investigation reveals that the information is incomplete, inaccurate, or unverifiable, the furnisher must

modify, delete, or permanently block the reporting of that item of information. Id.

To state a § 1681s2-(b) cause of action, under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Plaintiff need only set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

[plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a); see also Carlson v. Trans Union, LLC, 259

F.Supp.2d 517 (N.D. Tex. April 16, 2003); Sullivan v. Equifax, 2002 WL 799856 (E.D. Pa. April 19,

2002). This liberal notice pleading standard is satisfied if the complaint gives Defendants “fair notice

of the basis for [Plaintiff’s] claims.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002). 

Evaluating the FAC in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that it meets the

standard set forth in Rule 8(a). The allegations detailed in the FAC gives Defendants sufficient notice

of Plaintiff’s § 1681s2-(b) claim with respect to the car loan account she previously had with

AmeriCredit and the grounds upon which they rest. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the

“Plaintiff discovered that the closed, fully paid AmeriCredit car loan account . . . [was] not being

reported accurately and completely on her credit reports.” (First Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) The complaint

also alleges that AmeriCredit, after notice of the dispute, failed “to review the relevant information”

provided by the CRAs, “to conduct a reasonable investigation,” and “continued to report inaccurate

and incomplete information concerning Plaintiff’s car loan account.” (Id. ¶ 14, 15.) Plaintiff has

sufficiently identified what she alleges to be inaccurate or incomplete information, i.e. her payments

with respect to the AmeriCredit car loan account. Although Defendant AmeriCredit asserts that to

make a § 1681s2-(b), Plaintiff must “identify the inaccuracy or incomplete entry in her credit report”

with specificity, none of the cases cited by AmeriCredit adequately supports such a heightened

“FCRA pleading requirement” that is distinct from a Rule 8(a) pleading. (Reply at 2.)5 Thus, Plaintiff

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 5 of 8
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

reinvestigate under section 1681i(a) are . . . (1) The plaintiff’s credit file contains inaccurate or

incomplete information.”) These cases do not support the contention that the inaccurate or incomplete

information alleged must be plead with specificity. 

6

has plead sufficient facts to provide AmeriCredit with notice of the basis of Plaintiff’s § 1681s2-(b)

claim to avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. 

B. Plaintiff’s First Amended and Supplemental Complaint is Not Ambiguous.

Alternatively, Defendant AmeriCredit asserts that Plaintiff should be required to provide a

more definite statement. Plaintiff contends that as to AmeriCredit, the “allegations of inaccurate and

incomplete reporting of credit report information are unambiguous.” Furthermore, Plaintiff points to

her discovery responses as providing AmeriCredit with additional information that eliminates any

alleged confusion. 

Although regarded with disfavor, Rule 12(e) provides that a party may move for a more

definite statement before serving a responsive pleading. However, if the information sought is

available through the discovery process, a Rule 12(e) motion is inappropriate. See Famolare Inc.,

525 F.Supp. at 949. In this case, the specifics of the alleged incomplete or inaccurate information

stated on Plaintiff’s report, as requested by AmeriCredit, is ascertainable through the discovery

process. See Beery v. Hitachi Home Elec., 157 F.R.D. 477 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 1993) (“the identity of

the specific claims of the ‘734 patent which allegedly have been and continue to be infringed can

readily be ascertained through the liberal federal discovery procedures.”). For instance, Plaintiff’s

discovery response has revealed that “AmeriCredit appears to have furnished the erroneous

information about her car loan account being then currently past due, as reported in her credit reports.” 

(Opp’n at 7.) Although AmeriCredit contends that the response was inadequate since “Plaintiff has

had plenty of opportunity for further investigation and discovery,” the purpose of discovery is to

“facilitate open and evenhanded development of facts underlying a dispute.” American Floral Serv.,

Inc. v. Florists’ Transworld Deliverty Ass’n, 107 F.R.D. 258, 260 (N.D. Ill. 1985). Should Defendant

AmeriCredit require more information to fully prepare a defense, they can rely on the discovery

process and serve upon Plaintiff additional interrogatories or request the production of documents. 

Furthermore, in congruence with the Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s complaint has plead sufficient facts

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 6 of 8
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

6As Defendant Trans Union LLC joined AmeriCredit in this Motion, the findings of this Order

are applicable to Defendant Trans Union.

7

to state a claim and considering Defendant AmeriCredit’s well articulated arguments, the Court finds

that the pleading is not so vague or ambiguous as to cause AmeriCredit confusion. The FAC alleges

sufficient facts to enable AmeriCredit to understand the substance of the claim being asserted, thus,

this action does not warrant a more definite statement. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant AmeriCredit’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the 

alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement is DENIED.6

Dated: June 28, 2005 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 7 of 8
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Amy Greenstein agreenstein@kilpatrickstockton.com

Andrea Hackett Henningsen ahh@severson.com

Donald E. Bradley dbradley@crowell.com

Jeremy A. Rhyne jrhyne@crowell.com

Mark Robert Reedy Mreedy4684@aol.com

Michelle Leigh Vizurraga mlvizurraga@jonesday.com

Scott J. Hyman sjh@severson.com

Scott K. Behrendt skbehrendt@jonesday.com

Steve W. Dollar nritz@eakdl.com

Dated: June 28, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 105 Filed 06/28/05 Page 8 of 8