Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05544/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05544-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAQUEL BLAKENEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT 

RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND 

REGIONAL FINANCE 

CORPORATION’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 47

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed by 

Defendants Credit Recovery Associates, Inc. (“Credit Recovery Associates”) and Regional 

Finance Corporation (“Regional Finance”). ECF No. 83. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 

Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the 

motion hearing set for August 18, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. Having considered the submissions of the 

parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss 

with prejudice. The case management conference for Plaintiff and remaining Defendant 

Ascension Services, L.P. remains as set on August 18, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 12
2

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. ECF No. 82 (“FAC”) 

¶ 5. “Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code affords individuals receiving regular income an 

opportunity to obtain some relief from their debts while retaining their property. To proceed under 

Chapter 13, a debtor must propose a plan to use future income to repay a portion (or in the rare 

case all) of his debts over the next three to five years.” Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 

1686, 1690 (2015). “If the bankruptcy court confirms the plan and the debtor successfully carries 

it out, he receives a discharge of his debts according to the plan.” Id. at 1690. 

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan was confirmed on May 30, 2015. FAC ¶ 5. 

Plaintiff alleges that approximately 43% of Plaintiff’s debt to Credit Recovery Associates was to 

be paid under the terms of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff does not allege whether 

any of Plaintiff’s debt to Regional Finance was to be paid under the terms of Plaintiff’s 

bankruptcy plan, though Plaintiff does allege that Regional Finance was bound by the terms of 

Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff has successfully paid 

her debt according to the plan, or that Plaintiff’s debt has been discharged.

On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff ordered a three-bureau credit report from Equifax, Inc.

(“Equifax”). Id. ¶ 6. In the report, Plaintiff allegedly “noticed several tradelines on the September 

3, 2015 credit report all reporting misleading and inaccurate information.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff

alleges that Credit Recovery Associates was reporting Plaintiff’s account “as owing both a balance 

of $649, monthly payments due in the amount of $60, [and] a past due balance of $909.” Id. ¶ 9. 

Plaintiff alleges that Regional Finance Corporation was reporting that Plaintiff’s account was “in 

collections and charged off” without referencing Plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing. Id. ¶ 10.

In response to the report, on October 18, 2015, Plaintiff disputed the allegedly inaccurate 

tradelines with the three credit reporting bureaus: Equifax, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 

(“Experian”), and TransUnion, LLC (“TransUnion”). Id. ¶ 11. According to Plaintiff, each credit 

reporting bureau sent Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance a notification that 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 12
3

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

Plaintiff was disputing the accuracy of the credit report. Id. ¶ 12. 

On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff ordered a three-bureau credit report from Equifax. Id.

¶ 13. Plaintiff allegedly learned that the credit report still reported “the same inaccuracies” as the 

previous report. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance 

failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s dispute because they failed to review 

the terms of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan or investigate the impact of the bankruptcy plan. Id. ¶ 13. 

Plaintiff additionally alleges that Credit Recovery Associates “supplied inaccurate and misleading 

information to the Credit Reporting Agencies by reporting, after Plaintiff’s [C]hapter 13 filing and 

confirmation of the repayment plan, that the account was in collections, charged off, and that both 

a balance and past due balance were owed to Defendant Credit Recovery Associates, despite the 

treatment of its claims under the terms of Plaintiff’s confirmed [C]hapter 13 repayment plan.” Id.

¶ 23. As to Regional Finance, Plaintiff alleges that Regional Finance “supplied inaccurate and 

misleading information to the Credit Reporting Agencies by reporting, after Plaintiff’s [C]hapter 

13 filing and confirmation of the repayment plan, that the account was in collections and charged 

off with no mention of Plaintiff’s [C]hapter 13 filing, despite the treatment of the claim under the 

terms of Plaintiff’s confirmed [C]hapter 13 repayment plan.” Id. ¶ 24.

B. Procedural History

On December 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint against Credit Recovery 

Associates and Regional Finance as well as against Defendants Experian; Equifax; TransUnion;

Ascension Services, L.P. (“Ascension Services”); and Capital One, National Association (“Capital 

One”). ECF No. 1. 

On December 29, 2015, Equifax and Experian answered Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF Nos. 

15, 18. TransUnion answered Plaintiff’s complaint on December 30, 2015. ECF No. 22. Capital 

One answered Plaintiff’s complaint on February 23, 2016. ECF No. 45. 

The Court granted a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to TransUnion on February 

11, 2016. ECF No. 36. The Court granted a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to Equifax 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 12
4

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

on April 1, 2016. ECF No. 60. The Court granted a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to 

Capital One on April 28, 2016. ECF No. 80. The Court granted a stipulation of dismissal with 

prejudice as to Experian on May 31, 2016. ECF No. 86. Thus, there are three remaining 

Defendants: Credit Recovery Associates, Regional Finance, and Ascension Services.

Credit Recovery Associates filed a motion to dismiss on February 24, 2016. ECF No. 47. 

Plaintiff opposed the motion on March 9, 2016. ECF No. 55. Credit Recovery Associates replied 

on March 16, 2016. ECF No. 58. The Court granted Credit Recovery Associates’ motion to 

dismiss with leave to amend on April 15, 2016. ECF No. 68. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that 

“failure to cure the deficiencies identified in [the Court’s order on Credit Recovery Associates’ 

motion to dismiss] will result in a dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims.” Id.

Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2016. FAC, ECF No. 82. In the 

First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Credit Recovery Services, Regional Finance, and 

Ascension Services violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s2(b). Plaintiff also asserts that Credit Recovery Associates, Ascension Services, and Regional 

Finance violated California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”), Cal. Civ. 

Code § 1785.25(a). 

Credit Recovery Services and Regional Finance together filed the instant motion to dismiss 

on May 26, 2016. ECF No. 88 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff filed a response on June 9, 2016. ECF No. 87 

(“Opp.”). Credit Recovery Services and Regional Finance filed a reply on June 16, 2016. ECF 

No. 88 (“Reply”).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” A complaint 

that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 8(a) requires a 

plaintiff to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 12
5

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The plausibility 

standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that 

a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

For purposes of ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “accept[s] factual allegations 

in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The 

Court, however, need not accept as true allegations contradicted by judicially noticeable facts, see 

Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000), and it “may look beyond the plaintiff’s 

complaint to matters of public record” without converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion 

for summary judgment, Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995). Nor must the 

Court “assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual 

allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Mere 

“conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to 

dismiss.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004).

B. Leave to Amend

If the court concludes that the complaint should be dismissed, it must then decide whether 

to grant leave to amend. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to 

amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose 

of Rule 15 . . . [is] to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or 

technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (ellipsis in 

original). Nonetheless, a district court may deny leave to amend a complaint due to “undue delay, 

bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of 

the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 12
6

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (brackets in original).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s FCRA Claim

The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s FCRA claim, and then turns to Plaintiff’s CCRAA 

claim. Congress enacted the FCRA “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote 

efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Gorman v. Wolpoff & 

Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 

U.S. 47, 52 (2007)). To ensure that credit reports are accurate, “the FCRA imposes some duties 

on the sources that provide credit information to [consumer reporting agencies], called ‘furnishers’ 

in the statute.” Id. Certain obligations are triggered “upon notice of dispute”—that is, when a 

person or entity who furnished information to a consumer reporting agency receives notice from 

the consumer reporting agency that the consumer disputes the information. Id.at 1154. 

Subsection 1681-2(b) of the FCRA provides that, after receiving a notice of dispute, the furnisher 

shall: 

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency . . .;

(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;

(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report 

those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished 

the information . . .; and

(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or 

incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) . . . 

(i) modify that item of information; 

(ii) delete that item of information; or 

(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). The FCRA creates a private right of action for willful or negligent 

noncompliance with this subsection. Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154 (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, o).

Plaintiff asserts that Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance are “furnishers” 

under the FCRA and that Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance received from the 

credit reporting bureaus “notification that Plaintiff was disputing the accuracy of what it was 

reporting.” FAC ¶¶ 12, 19. After receiving notice of Plaintiff’s dispute, Credit Recovery 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 12
7

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

Associates and Regional Finance allegedly violated the FCRA in two ways: (1) failing to conduct a 

reasonable investigation, in violation of § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A); and (2) failing to correct their

reporting of inaccurate information, in violation of § 168s-2(b)(1)(C)–(E). Credit Recovery 

Associates and Regional Finance do not dispute that these are cognizable FCRA claims, but 

contend that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead facts to support these claims. The Court previously 

granted Credit Recovery Associates’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FCRA claim for failure to 

sufficiently plead facts to support either a claim for failure to conduct a reasonable investigation or 

a claim for failure to correct the reporting of inaccurate information. The Court addresses 

Plaintiff’s two theories of FCRA liability in turn.

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to allege that Credit 

Recovery Associates and Regional Finance acted either willfully or negligently, as required for 

Plaintiff to have a private right of action. See Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, o. 

As this Court held in granting Credit Recovery Associate’s prior motion to dismiss, Plaintiff 

cannot bring any claims under the FCRA without alleging that the alleged violations of the FCRA 

were willful or negligent. See ECF No. 80. Because Plaintiff still fails to allege that Credit 

Recovery Associates and Regional Finance violated the FCRA willfully or negligently, Plaintiff 

cannot bring any claims under the FCRA. See id.; see also Thompson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 

WL 355707, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015) (dismissing FCRA claim when plaintiff alleged the 

defendant acted “knowingly and willfully” without providing any factual basis for the allegation).

Apart from the private right of action, the Court identifies additional reasons to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s FCRA claim. As to Plaintiff’s first theory of liability, the FCRA requires a furnisher to 

“conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information” after the furnisher receives 

notice of a dispute from a consumer reporting agency. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). The Ninth 

Circuit has held that such an investigation must be “reasonable.” Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1157. 

“[W]hether a reinvestigation conducted by a furnisher in response to a consumer’s notice of 

dispute is reasonable depends in large part on the allegations provided to the furnisher by the 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 7 of 12
8

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

credit reporting agency.” Id. at 1160 (ellipses omitted). The only allegations in the First 

Amended Complaint regarding the allegations provided to the furnishers by the credit reporting 

agencies is that “Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate tradelines via certified mail” and that “each 

credit agency sent each Defendant notification that Plaintiff was disputing the accuracy of what it 

was reporting to them.” FAC ¶¶ 11, 12. Plaintiff then alleges that Credit Recovery Associates 

and Regional Finance failed to conduct a reasonable investigation because they did not review the 

terms of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan and did not investigate the impact of the bankruptcy plan. Id.

¶ 15. However, Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff’s dispute to the credit reporting agencies of 

the allegedly inaccurate tradelines mentioned Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan, nor does Plaintiff allege 

that the credit reporting agencies notified Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance that 

Plaintiff’s dispute centered on Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan. Thus, because “whether a 

reinvestigation conducted by a furnisher in response to a consumer’s notice of dispute is 

reasonable depends in large part on the allegations provided to the furnisher by the credit 

reporting agency,” Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1157, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Credit 

Recovery Associates and Regional Finance reasonably should have reviewed Plaintiff’s 

bankruptcy plan.

As to Plaintiff’s second theory of liability, the FCRA requires a furnisher, upon receiving 

notice of a dispute, to report the results of the investigation and “if the investigation finds that the 

information is incomplete or inaccurate, report” and correct those results. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s2(b)(1)(C)–(E); see also Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 690 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(“Upon being notified of a dispute by a [credit reporting agency], a furnisher must investigate and, 

if necessary, correct the information it reports.”). Information can be “incomplete or inaccurate” 

within the meaning of the FCRA “because it is patently incorrect, or because it is misleading in 

such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions.” 

Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1163. Accordingly, omitting the disputed nature of a debt, if the dispute 

could materially alter how the reported debt is understood, may be “incomplete or inaccurate” 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 8 of 12
9

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

reporting. See id. at 1163–64.

In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that Credit Recovery Associates “supplied inaccurate 

and misleading information to the Credit Reporting Agencies by reporting, after Plaintiff’s 

[C]hapter 13 filing and confirmation of the repayment plan, that the account was in collections, 

charged off, and that both a balance and past due balance were owed to Defendant Credit Recovery 

Associates, despite the treatment of its claims under the terms of Plaintiff’s confirmed [C]hapter 13 

repayment plan.” Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff does not assert that the account was not in collection or 

charged off, that the balance on the account was not past due, or that no balance was owed. 

As to Regional Finance, Plaintiff alleges that Regional Finance “supplied inaccurate and 

misleading information to the Credit Reporting Agencies by reporting, after Plaintiff’s [C]hapter 

13 filing and confirmation of the repayment plan, that the account was in collections and charged 

off with no mention of Plaintiff’s [C]hapter 13 filing, despite the treatment of the claim under the 

terms of Plaintiff’s confirmed [C]hapter 13 repayment plan.” Id. ¶ 24. As with Credit Recovery 

Associates, Plaintiff does not assert that the Regional Finance account was not in collection or 

charged off. 

Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance argue that, as a matter of law, it is 

neither misleading nor inaccurate to report delinquent debts during the pendency of a bankruptcy 

proceeding prior to the discharge of the debts. Courts in this district have found that reporting 

delinquent payments during bankruptcy may be misleading if the furnisher omits to report that the 

debts were discharged. See Mortimer v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C-12-01959 JCS, 2013 WL 

1501452, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (finding that reporting delinquencies during the 

pendency of bankruptcy is not misleading so long as the creditor reports that the account was 

discharged through bankruptcy and the outstanding balance is zero); Venugopal v. Digital Fed. 

Credit Union, No. 12-CV-06067 EJD, 2013 WL 1283436, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013) 

(holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the FCRA when the reporting did 

not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute). 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 9 of 12
10

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

However, courts in this district have consistently held that it is not misleading or inaccurate 

to report delinquent debts that have not been discharged. See Mortimer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 

N.A., No. C 12-1936 CW, 2012 WL 3155563, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012) (“While it might be 

good policy in light of the goals of bankruptcy protection to bar reporting of late payments while a 

bankruptcy petition is pending, neither the bankruptcy code nor the FCRA does so.”); see also 

Mortimer v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C-12-01959 JCS, 2013 WL 1501452, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 

2013) (finding that reporting delinquencies during the pendency of bankruptcy is not misleading so 

long as the creditor reports that the account was discharged through bankruptcy and the 

outstanding balance is zero); Giovanni v. Bank of America, N.A., No. C 12-02530 LB, 2013 WL 

1663335, at *6 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2013) (holding that it was not misleading or inaccurate for a 

furnisher to report overdue payments on debtor’s account during pendency of Chapter 7 

bankruptcy petition but prior to discharge); Giovanni v. Bank of America, N.A., No. C 12-02530 

LB, 2012 WL 6599681, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012) (same).

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan has been confirmed but Plaintiff’s debts 

have not yet been discharged. Confirmation of Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan is not 

equivalent to discharge of Plaintiff’s debts, and Plaintiff is not entitled to receive a discharge of 

debts covered under Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan until Plaintiff has completed all 

payments provided for under the Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1328 (providing that 

“the court shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts provided for by the plan . . . after 

completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan” subject to certain conditions). Thus, it 

was not misleading or inaccurate for Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance to report 

Plaintiff’s delinquent debts. Because Plaintiff’s debts have not been discharged, Credit Recovery 

Associates and Regional Finance had no obligation to reference Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceeding. 

See Mortimer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 3155563, at *3 (“While it might be good 

policy in light of the goals of bankruptcy protection to bar reporting of late payments while a 

bankruptcy petition is pending, neither the bankruptcy code nor the FCRA does so.”).

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 10 of 12
11

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FCRA cause of action

as to Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance.

In granting Credit Recovery Associates’ first motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FCRA claim, the 

Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claim would lead to 

dismissal with prejudice. As Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has not cured the deficiencies 

identified in the Court’s prior order, the Court concludes that further amendment would be futile. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s FCRA claim is dismissed with prejudice. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 

(holding that “a district court should grant leave to amend . . . unless it determines that the pleading 

could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts”).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a)

Section 1785.25(a) of the CCRAA provides that “[a] person shall not furnish information 

on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person 

knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.” Cal. Civ. Code. § 1785.25(a). 

The CCRAA provides for a private right of action to enforce this provision. Id. §§ 1785.25(g), 

1785.31(a). “[B]ecause the CCRAA ‘is substantially based on the Federal Fair Credit Reporting 

Act, judicial interpretation of the federal provisions is persuasive authority and entitled to 

substantial weight when interpreting the California provisions.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs. 

LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 889 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Olson v. Six Rivers Nat’l Bank, 111 Cal. App. 4th 

1, 12 (2003)).

Similar to Plaintiff’s FCRA claim, Plaintiff asserts that Credit Recovery Associates and 

Regional Finance violated the CCRAA by reporting the same alleged “misleading and inaccurate 

account information” as alleged in Plaintiff’s FCRA claim. FAC ¶ 27. The parties’ arguments 

about the accuracy and completeness of this information in the context of a CCRAA claim mirror 

the parties’ FCRA claim arguments. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has not sufficiently 

alleged that Credit Recovery Associates or Regional Finance reported any inaccurate or 

incomplete information. Accordingly, the Court need not address the Defendants’ argument that 

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 11 of 12
12

Case No. 15-CV-05544-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING CREDIT RECOVERY ASSOCIATES AND REGIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

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 California

the CCRAA does not provide a private right of action against furnishers of credit information. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s CCRAA claim as to Credit 

Recovery Associates and Regional Finance. 

As with Plaintiff’s FCRA claim, the Court in its order on Credit Recovery Associates’ prior 

motion to dismiss cautioned Plaintiff that failure to cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s CCRAA 

claim would lead to dismissal with prejudice. As Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has not 

cured the deficiencies identified in the Court’s prior order, the Court concludes that further 

amendment would be futile. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s CCRAA claim is dismissed with prejudice.

See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss filed by Credit 

Recovery Associates and Regional Finance with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment in 

favor of Credit Recovery Associates and Regional Finance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05544-LHK Document 98 Filed 08/15/16 Page 12 of 12