Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01836/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01836-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01836-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’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

RONNIE LITTLETON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01836-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 16

Plaintiff Ronnie Littleton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in Santa Clara County Superior 

Court against Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax, Inc., SunTrust Mortgage, 

Inc. (“SunTrust”), FedLoan Servicing, and Military Star for alleged violations of (1) the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), (2) the California Consumer Credit 

Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code § 1785.25(a), (3) and the Unfair Competition Law, 

California Business and Professions Code § 17200. FedLoan Servicing removed the action to this 

court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

SunTrust now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). See Docket Item No. 16. Plaintiff opposes the motion. See Docket Item No. 

21. This matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 6, 2015, is VACATED. Having carefully 

considered the pleadings filed by the parties, the court finds, concludes and orders as follows:

1. On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint is 

construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all material allegations in the 

complaint are taken to be true. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). This rule 

Case 5:15-cv-01836-EJD Document 34 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01836-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’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

does not apply to legal conclusions - “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 663 (2009). While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to survive a 

12(b)(6) motion, plaintiffs must provide grounds demonstrating their entitlement to relief. Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, the plaintiff must allege sufficient 

factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. This threshold is 

reached when the complaint contains sufficient facts to allow the court to draw a reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

2. Although the FCRA generally prohibits “[a] person” from furnishing information 

“relating to a consumer” to any consumer reporting agency “if the person knows or consciously 

avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate,” a consumer cannot sue a furnisher based 

simply on the communication of inaccurate information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a); see Nelson v. 

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2002). Instead, a consumer has 

a private right of action against a furnisher if, after receiving notice that information is disputed, 

the furnisher fails to reasonably undertake one of the following duties: “conduct an investigation 

with respect to the disputed information,” “review all relevant information provided by the 

consumer reporting agency,” “report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting 

agency,” and “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 that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.” 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681s-2(b). 

3. SunTrust argues the FCRA claim is insufficient because Plaintiff failed to describe 

what information SunTrust allegedly communicated to the consumer reporting agencies, as well as 

why this information was inaccurate. The court agrees these facts are necessary to state a claim 

under § 1681s-2(b) that is plausible rather than merely speculative. See Lyles v. Ford Motor 

Credit Co., No. SACV 12-1736 AG (RNBx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58804, at *11, 2013 WL 

987723 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013) (“Courts have held that consumers asserting Section 1681s-2(b) 

Case 5:15-cv-01836-EJD Document 34 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01836-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’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

violations based on ‘furnishing inaccurate information [] must identify which information is 

inaccurate.’”). Plaintiff’s unspecific allegations alluding to “misleading and or inaccurate 

balances or past due balances owed” with regard to some unidentified account is not enough for 

SunTrust, or any other furnisher defendant for that matter, to understand the basis for any potential 

liability. 

4. In a related argument, SunTrust also argues that Plaintiff failed to differentiate 

between the furnisher defendants by alleging, in one sentence, that all of them “failed to conduct a 

reasonable investigation and reported falsely to at least Experian Information Solutions, Inc. or all 

three bureaus a misleading and or inaccurate balance or past due balance owed on the account and 

or listed the account as transferred and or charged off.” Coupled with the lack of facts detailing 

the alleged inaccurate information and who it was furnished by, this “everyone did everything 

allegation” is particularly problematic. See Yost v. Nationstar Mortg., No. 1:13-cv-00745-AWISAB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128504, at *7-8, 2013 WL 4828590 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013) (“A 

plaintiff suing multiple defendants ‘must allege the basis of his claim against each defendant to 

satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement of the 

claim to put defendants on sufficient notice of the allegations against them.’”). Without knowing 

what information Plaintiff believes is inaccurate, and by attributing a list of potential conduct 

against all of the furnisher defendants by using the “and or” connector, it is impossible for any of 

them to know exactly what Plaintiff has placed at issue. 

5. In short, Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from defects most often seen when an 

unspecific form complaint is not modified to fit the facts of a particular case. Plaintiff must 

provide better tailored allegations for this case to proceed, at least in federal court. He will be 

permitted leave to amend to address the defects in her pleading. See Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. 

Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that leave to amend should 

be freely allowed “unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the 

challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”).

Based on the foregoing, SunTrust’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The FCRA claim is 

Case 5:15-cv-01836-EJD Document 34 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-01836-EJD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’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

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. With the dismissal of the only federal claim asserted 

in the Complaint, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s related 

state law claims. They will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); 

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 

F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Any amended complaint must be filed on or before August 19, 2015. Plaintiff is advised 

that, although leave to amend has been permitted, he may not add new claims or new parties to 

this action without first obtaining Defendants’ consent or leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01836-EJD Document 34 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 4