Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01451-2/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

TERRANCE MARSH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS TO:

(1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

OR

(2); NOTIFY THE COURT THAT THEY

WISH TO STAND ON THEIR COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil action. Generally, they allege that Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation violated the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by providing false information to consumer reporting 

agencies. The complaint is now before this Court for screening.

For the reasons given below, the Court concludes that the complaint does not state any 

cognizable claims. After Plaintiffs review this order, Plaintiffs may choose to file an amended 

complaint, which the Court will screen in due course. Plaintiffs may also notify the Court that 

they want to stand on their complaint, in which case this Court will issue findings and 

recommendations to the assigned district judge, recommending that Plaintiffs’ complaint be 

dismissed for the reasons in this order. If Plaintiffs do not file anything, the Court will 

recommend that the case be dismissed.

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 6
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

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

As Plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court screens the complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 7). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may 

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action 

or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 

681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s 

legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs identify Freedom Mortgage Corporation as the sole Defendant in this case. (ECF 

No. 1, p. 2). As for the basis for federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs list “FCRA . . . whereas defendant 

reported false information to credit bureaus, Section 16810.”1(Id. at 3). Regarding the facts 

supporting their claim, they state as follows:

Defendants reported false information to all major credit bureaus on both plaintiffs 

1 Plaintiff also lists the “CCRAA,” an apparent reference to the California Consumer Credit Reporting 

Agencies Act. “Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff 

must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has not 

stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law [as explained below], the Court declines to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and they accordingly will not be screened.” Cruz 

v. Online Info. Servs., Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01127-AWI-BAM, 2019 WL 1789687, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 

2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3367527 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2019) (declining to 

exercise supplement jurisdiction over, or to screen, CCRAA claim after the Plaintiff failed to state any 

cognizable FCRA claim). 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 6
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

record, causing credit scores to plummet and denial of credit from other agencies, 

including the sale or refinance of the home with defendant. defendant and their 

affiliates made numerous inquiries on plaintiffs credit. Defendants falsely reported 

late payments on report, bringing score down. plaintiffs complained to credit 

bureaus and supplied all rec[ei]pts for the defendants claim to dates of accounts 

not paid by plaintiff. Defendants has not fixed problem and credit score damage 

had already been done and plaintiffs credit continues to be harshly affected and 

plaintiffs cannot get a refinance due to false credit reporting.

(Id. at 4). 

As for relief, “plaintiffs ask for $245,000-value of home, $100,000 equity in home and 

$60,000 punitive damages for hardship and ruining of credit whereas we cannot qualify for 

anything until the damage is cleared.” (Id. at 5). 

III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs list the FCRA in their complaint as a statute that Defendant violated. (ECF No. 

1, p. 3). In relevant part, the Ninth Circuit has described the FCRA as follows:

Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681–

1681x, in 1970 “to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in 

the banking system, and protect consumer privacy.” Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 

551 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 2205, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007). As an important 

means to this end, the Act sought to make “consumer reporting agencies exercise 

their grave responsibilities [in assembling and evaluating consumers’ credit, and 

disseminating information about consumers’ credit] with fairness, impartiality, and 

a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4). In addition, 

to ensure that credit reports are accurate, the FCRA imposes some duties on the 

sources that provide credit information to CRAs, called “furnishers” in the statute. 

Section 1681s–2 sets forth “[r]esponsibilities of furnishers of information to 

consumer reporting agencies,” delineating two categories of responsibilities. 

Subsection (a) details the duty “to provide accurate information,” and includes the 

following duty:

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute

If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person 

to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a 

consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer 

reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the 

consumer.

§ 1681s–2(a)(3).

Section 1681s–2(b) imposes a second category of duties on furnishers of 

information. These obligations are triggered “upon notice of dispute”—that is, 

when a person who furnished information to a CRA receives notice from the CRA 

that the consumer disputes the information. See § 1681i(a)(2) (requiring CRAs 

promptly to provide such notification containing all relevant information about the 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 6
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

consumer’s dispute). Subsection 1681s–2(b) 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 [CRA] pursuant to 

section 1681i(a)(2) . . . ;

(C) report the results of the investigation to the [CRA];

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

inaccurate, report those results to all other [CRAs] 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 . . . (ii) delete[or] (iii) permanently 

block the reporting of that item of information [to the CRAs].

§ 1681s–2(b)(1). These duties arise only after the furnisher receives notice of 

dispute from a CRA; notice of a dispute received directly from the consumer does 

not trigger furnishers’ duties under subsection (b). See id.; Nelson v. Chase 

Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (9th Cir.2002).

The FCRA expressly creates a private right of action for willful or negligent 

noncompliance with its requirements. §§ 1681n & o; see also Nelson, 282 F.3d at 

1059. However, § 1681s–2 limits this private right of action to claims arising 

under subsection (b), the duties triggered upon notice of a dispute from a CRA. § 

1681s–2(c) (“Except[for circumstances not relevant here], sections 1681n and 

1681o of this title do not apply to any violation of ... subsection (a) of this section, 

including any regulations issued thereunder.”). Duties imposed on furnishers under 

subsection (a) are enforceable only by federal or state agencies. See § 1681s–2(d).

Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2009) (footnotes 

omitted).

The only provision of the FCRA that Plaintiffs mention is “Section 16810,” which does 

not exist. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). Presumably, Plaintiffs are referring to § 1681o, which generally 

creates a private right of action for FCRA violations. As to which underlying provision of the 

FCRA was violated, Plaintiffs do not identify one. However, construing their complaint liberally, 

it appears that they may be alleging violation of § 1681s-2(b), which permits a private right of 

action for failing to complete certain obligations—like conducting an investigation into disputed 

information and reporting the results of the investigation to a CRA. However, as Gorman notes, 

“[t]hese obligations are triggered ‘upon notice of dispute’—that is, when a person who furnished 

information to a CRA receives notice from the CRA that the consumer disputes the information.” 

584 F.3d at 1154 (emphasis added). While Plaintiffs indicate that Defendant furnished false 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 6
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

information, which they disputed to CRAs, with Defendant not “fix[ing] the problem,” they do 

not allege that Defendant received notice from a CRA that they disputed certain information. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 

Kianpour v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 17-01757 SJO (GJSx), 2017 WL 8292776, at *6 

(C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017) (concluding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim because § 1681s-2(b) 

required the Plaintiff to allege facts that a CRA provided a notification of a dispute to the 

furnisher of information). 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and concludes that Plaintiffs fail to state any 

other cognizable claims.

Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court should freely give 

leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiffs with 

time to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint 

within thirty days. 

If Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint must allege 

violations under the law as discussed above. Plaintiffs should note that although they have been 

given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or 

adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints). 

Plaintiffs are advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey 

v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete in 

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. 

Alternatively, Plaintiffs may choose to stand on this complaint, in which case the Court 

will issue findings and recommendations to the district judge recommending dismissal of the 

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 5 of 6
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

6

action consistent with this order. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiffs a pro se civil rights complaint form (i.e., 

Pro Se 1 Form);

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:

a. File a First Amended Complaint; or

b. Notify the Court in writing that they wish to stand on their complaint.

3. Should Plaintiff choose to amend their complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended 

complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:23-cv-01451-JLTEPG; and

4. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 11/27/23 Page 6 of 6