Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05704/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05704-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re:

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

CREDIT REPORTING LITIGATION.

 /

No. C 16-05674 WHA

No. C 16-05676 WHA

No. C 16-05679 WHA

No. C 16-05694 WHA

No. C 16-05701 WHA

No. C 16-05704 WHA

No. C 16-06315 WHA

No. C 16-06335 WHA

No. C 16-06363 WHA

No. C 16-06372 WHA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

(IN ALL OF THE ABOVE-LISTED CASES)

This order holds that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., a

report of a debt may be stated at the full unpaid balance even if the debt is subject to a confirmed

Chapter 13 plan wherein the debt will be discharged if and when a specified lesser amount is

paid. Under the Bankruptcy Act, the full debt remains undischarged until, if ever, the specified

amount is actually paid. So it remains correct to inform the world at large via the credit report

of the full unpaid balance. Since the risk persists that the debtor will fail to pay under the

Chapter 13 plan, it would be misleading to future creditors to report, as plaintiffs’ counsel

insists in all of these cases, the lesser amount. That would be getting the cart before the horse. 

First, the debtor must perform as specified under the plan, then get a discharge. At that point,

the debt will go to zero.

Case 3:16-cv-05704-WHA Document 54 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 3
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

Although our court of appeals has not yet ruled on the issue, every single district judge

who has ruled has held as above. This order adopts this reasoning, including at least two cases

rejecting plaintiffs’ main decision In re Luedtke, No. 2-3582-SVK, 2008 WL 295253

(Bankr. E.D. Wis. July 31, 2008). See, e.g., Newkirk v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. et al.,

No. 4:16-CV-05691-SBA, 2017 WL 1078653 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) (Judge Saundra

Armstrong); Mamisay v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 16-CV-5684-YGR, 2017 WL 106517

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 217) (Judge Yvonne Rogers) (rejecting In re Luedtke); Smith v. Experian

Info. Sols., Inc., No. 16-CV-4653-BLF, 2017 WL 1092377 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017)

(Judge Beth Freeman) (rejecting In re Luedtke); Polvorosa v. Allied Collection Serv., Inc.,

No. 2:16-CV-1508 JCM (CWH), 2017 WL 29331 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2017). 

At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel offered a fall-back position, namely that they would

accept reporting the full unpaid debt so long as the line item also noted that it remained subject

to a confirmed Chapter 13 plan. In fact, it appears that some creditors do just that. Yes, this

would put more accurate information in the report and Congress ought to consider an

amendment to require such notations. But credit reports also include a clear-cut statement up

front that the debtor is in bankruptcy proceedings, so it takes very little imagination for the

reader to realize that there may be a plan in place that might lead to a full discharge. At all

events, the fact remains that the full amount is the actual truthful amount of the debt so long as

the plan, even if confirmed, remains uncompleted, so there is no basis for insisting as a matter of

law that such a notation accompany each line item. 

This order makes the same ruling as to the California state law. Cal. Civ. Code § 17825.

Therefore, this entire action is hereby dismissed. If plaintiffs’ counsel wish to amend to

make some other claim for relief, such as the wrong dollar amount that accidentally got into the

report, then they may file a new amended complaint as to such other claim — but counsel’s main

point about the effect of a confirmed plan is wrong and may not be recycled into a new pleading. 

Case 3:16-cv-05704-WHA Document 54 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 3
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

The deadline for any new pleading in all these cases is APRIL 11, 2017, AT NOON, failing which

judgment will be entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-05704-WHA Document 54 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 3