Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-04-56230/USCOURTS-ca9-04-56230-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BEH-1, LLC

Jason Dennis
Appellant
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON DENNIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 04-56230

v.

D.C. No. BEH-1, LLC, a limited liability CV-03-07064-R company in the State of

California,  ORDER

Defendant, AMENDING

OPINION AND and AMENDED

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, OPINION

INC., an Ohio corporation,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

August 17, 2006—Pasadena, California

Filed September 25, 2007

Amended March 27, 2008

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge,

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Chief Judge Kozinski

3149

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 1 of 10
COUNSEL

Louis P. Dell, Esq., Law Office of Louis P. Dell, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. 

Meir Feder, Jones Day, New York, New York; Alexander

Frid, Jones Day, Los Angeles, California, for the defendantappellee. 

DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 3151

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 2 of 10
ORDER

The previous opinion, 504 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2007), is

amended as follows. The petition for rehearing or rehearing

en banc is denied; no further petitions may be filed. 

Page 897, Column 1, Line 22 

After <nonmoving party).> insert footnote 4, stating:

<In its petition for rehearing, Experian complains

that we didn’t give it an opportunity to be heard

before entering summary judgment against it. See

Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Comm’cns Co.,

377 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2004). But Experian

had ample opportunity to be heard on the reasonableness of its reinvestigation. Our first opinion discussed the issue at length. 485 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th

Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Dennis’s petition for rehearing disputed that analysis and pointed out that

Experian’s reinvestigation overlooked the documents

in his court file proving that his landlord’s case

against him was dismissed. Before granting Dennis’s

petition, we ordered Experian to respond. That order

put Experian on notice that it should defend the reasonableness of its reinvestigation, and Experian’s

response engaged just this point. 

Experian also complains that it hasn’t had an

opportunity to “introduce evidence” about the “overall reasonableness of its reinvestigation procedure.”

This concern is misplaced because there are no facts

that Experian could produce that would alter our

conclusion: A reinvestigation that overlooks documents in a court file, which expressly state that

no adverse judgment was entered, is negligent as a

matter of law.> 

3152 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 3 of 10
Page 897, Column 1, Lines 24-25 

Replace <for the jury> with <to be taken up> 

Page 897, Note 4, Column 1, Line 5 — Column 2, Line 7 

Delete <In regard to . . . had been entered against

Dennis.>

OPINION

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

We address whether a credit reporting agency can be liable

under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681, when it overlooks or misinterprets documents in a

court file. 

Facts

In October 2002, Jason Dennis was sued for unlawful

detainer. Eventually, his landlord agreed to drop the suit, in

exchange for $2,938.50, payable in installments. The parties

agreed that no judgment would be entered against Dennis, and

filed a written stipulation to that effect. The court’s Register

of Civil Actions inaccurately reports this event as:

“11/25/2002 Court Trial Concluded - Judgment Entered.”

Two months later, after Dennis paid the promised sums, the

parties presented a “Request for Dismissal,” which the court

clerk endorsed and filed. The corresponding Register entry

accurately reports how this action resolved the dispute:

“01/28/2003 Dismissal Without Prejudice - Entire Action,

Filed & Entered.” 

Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. subsequently prepared a credit report on Dennis, which indicated

DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 3153

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 4 of 10
that a “Civil Claim judgment” had been entered against him

in the amount of $1,959. Dennis called Experian and

informed it that the report was wrong, as he had settled the

dispute and no judgment was ever entered against him. 

Experian commissioned Hogan Information Services, a

third-party public records vendor, to verify the disputed information. Hogan reported that the information Experian had

was accurate and sent Experian a copy of the written stipulation between Dennis and his landlord, presumably as support

for this conclusion. Experian thereupon advised Dennis that it

would not amend the report. 

Dennis sued Experian, alleging violations of the California

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code

§ 1785.10, and the FCRA. The district court granted summary

judgment for Experian on all claims. On appeal, Dennis challenges only the summary judgment ruling on his federal

claims arising from Experian’s duty to maintain “reasonable

procedures” to ensure the accuracy of credit reports under

section 1681e(b), and its duty to reinvestigate the information

Dennis disputed under section 1681i.1 Because the district

court granted Experian’s motion for summary judgment in a

terse order stating no reasons, we assume that the court

adopted all arguments Experian presented in its motion. 

1As noted, Dennis brought a series of claims under state and federal

law. He presumably invites us to consider all of these by broadly framing

the question presented to us as “[w]hether it was error for the trial court

to grant summary judgment in favor of Experian.” However, his brief

presents argument only on his claims under sections 1681e(b) and 1681i.

Dennis has therefore waived his right to appeal summary judgment on all

other claims because they were not specifically argued in his brief. See

Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve

a claim. . . . ‘[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in

briefs.’ ” (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.

1991) (per curiam))). 

3154 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 5 of 10
Analysis

[1] 1. The district court erred insofar as it held that Dennis

couldn’t make the prima facie showing of inaccurate reporting

required by sections 1681e and 1681i. See Guimond v. Trans

Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995)

(section 1681e); Williams v. Colonial Bank, 826 F. Supp. 415,

418 (M.D. Ala. 1993) (section 1681i creates no duty to reinvestigate where “the credit report accurately reflect[s] the status of the information contained in the public records”).

Experian’s credit report on Dennis is inaccurate. Because the

case against Dennis was dismissed, there could have been no

“Civil claim judgment” against him: “A dismissal without

prejudice . . . has the effect of a final judgment in favor of the

defendant . . . .” Gagnon Co. v. Nev. Desert Inn, 289 P.2d

466, 472 (Cal. 1955) (emphasis added). Dennis has made the

prima facie showing of inaccuracy required by sections 1681e

and 1681i.2

[2] The district court also seems to have awarded summary

judgment to Experian because Dennis didn’t offer evidence of

“actual damages” as required by section 1681o(a)(1). Here,

too, the district court erred. Dennis testified that he hoped to

start a business and that he diligently paid his bills on time for

years so that he would have a clean credit history when he

sought financing for the venture. The only blemish on his

credit report in April 2003 was the erroneously reported judgment. According to Dennis, that was enough to cause several

lenders to decline his applications for credit, dashing his

hopes of starting a new business. Dennis also claims that

Experian’s error caused his next landlord to demand that Den2

It is true that Dennis was required to pay money to the landlord as a

condition for obtaining the dismissal, and Experian’s report would have

been accurate had it reported that Dennis settled a lawsuit against him, and

on what terms. (The parties have not briefed and we do not consider

whether being sued and settling are events that may be included in a credit

report under federal or state law.) But the report was certainly not accurate

in identifying the settlement as a “Civil claim judgment” against Dennis.

DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 3155

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 6 of 10
nis pay a greater security deposit. In addition to those tangible

harms, Dennis claims that Experian’s inaccurate report caused

him emotional distress, which we’ve held to be “actual damages.” See Guimond, 45 F.3d at 1332-33. 

[3] Dennis has shown that Experian’s credit report was

inaccurate and he has offered credible evidence of actual

damages. We therefore reverse the summary judgment for

Experian. This doesn’t mean that Experian is strictly liable for

the inaccuracy of its reports. At trial on the section 1681e(b)

claim, Experian remains free to argue (based, perhaps, on the

inaccurate Register entry of November 25, 2002) that it

should be exonerated because it followed “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.” 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681e(b); see Sarver v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 390

F.3d 969, 971-72 (7th Cir. 2004). 

[4] 2. After Dennis notified Experian of the error, Experian

had a duty to “conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information [was] inaccurate.” 15

U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A). By granting summary judgment to

Experian, the district court held that the company complied

with its reinvestigation obligations. Here again, the district

court erred. 

Experian asked Hogan Information Services to review Dennis’s court file. That file contained exactly what Dennis and

the court Register said that it contained: the “Request for Dismissal,” which resulted in the dismissal of the entire action.

Hogan’s investigator seems to have overlooked this document, or failed to understand its legal significance, because he

reported back that judgment had been entered against Dennis.

[5] Experian could have caught Hogan’s error if it had consulted the Civil Register in Dennis’s case, which can be

viewed free of charge on the Los Angeles Superior Court’s

excellent website.3 As described above, the Register clearly

3Superior Court of California—County of Los Angeles,

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. To view the Register of Actions in Den3156 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 7 of 10
indicates that the case against Dennis was dismissed.

Experian apparently never looked at the Register. 

[6] Experian also could have detected Hogan’s mistake by

examining the document Hogan retrieved from Dennis’s court

file. Hogan mistakenly believed that this document proved

that judgment had been entered against Dennis; in fact, the

document confirms Dennis’s account of what happened. The

document is a written stipulation between Dennis and his

landlord that no judgment would be entered against Dennis so

long as Dennis complied with the payment schedule. The parties couldn’t have been clearer on this point: “If paid, case

dismissed. If not paid, judgment to enter upon [landlord’s]

declaration of non-payment . . . .” The parties altered the preprinted form accordingly. They crossed out part of the document’s title (“STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT”); wrote

“NO JUDGMENT SO LONG AS PAYMENTS MADE” over

“Judgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff”; and struck

the final line, “Judgment is hereby ordered,” replacing it with

“Stipulation Approved.” Experian incorrectly interpreted this

document as an entry of judgment against Dennis. 

[7] Ordinarily we would remand Dennis’s claim for trial so

that a jury could determine whether Experian’s failure to reinvestigate was negligent. Here, however, a remand would be

pointless. Even accepting as true everything Experian has

claimed, no rational jury could find that the company wasn’t

negligent. The stipulation Hogan retrieved from Dennis’s

court file may be unusual, but it’s also unambiguous, and

Experian was negligent in mis-interpreting it as an entry of

judgment. Experian is also responsible for the negligence of

Hogan, the investigation service it hired to review Dennis’s

court file. Hogan appears to have overlooked the legal significance of the Request for Dismissal and the Register entry

nis’s case, one would click on the “Case Summaries” link beneath the

“Civil” heading, and enter the case number, 02U17296. 

DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 3157

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 8 of 10
showing that the case against Dennis was dismissed. See

again Gagnon, 289 P.2d at 472 (“A dismissal without prejudice . . . has the effect of a final judgment in favor of the

defendant . . . .”). 

[8] When conducting a reinvestigation pursuant to 15

U.S.C. § 1681i, a credit reporting agency must exercise reasonable diligence in examining the court file to determine

whether an adverse judgment has, in fact, been entered

against the consumer. A reinvestigation that overlooks documents in the court file expressly stating that no adverse judgment was entered falls far short of this standard. On our own

motion, therefore, we grant summary judgment to Dennis on

his claim that Experian negligently failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation in violation of section 1681i. See Bird v.

Glacier Elec. Coop., Inc., 255 F.3d 1136, 1152 (9th Cir.

2001) (authority to grant summary judgment to a non-moving

party).4 Whether Experian’s failure was also willful, in violation of section 1681n, is a question to be taken up on remand.

4

In its petition for rehearing, Experian complains that we didn’t give it

an opportunity to be heard before entering summary judgment against it.

See Verizon Delaware, Inc. v. Covad Comm’cns Co., 377 F.3d 1081, 1092

(9th Cir. 2004). But Experian had ample opportunity to be heard on the

reasonableness of its reinvestigation. Our first opinion discussed the issue

at length. 485 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Dennis’s

petition for rehearing disputed that analysis and pointed out that Experian’s reinvestigation overlooked the documents in his court file proving

that his landlord’s case against him was dismissed. Before granting Dennis’s petition, we ordered Experian to respond. That order put Experian on

notice that it should defend the reasonableness of its reinvestigation, and

Experian’s response engaged just this point. 

Experian also complains that it hasn’t had an opportunity to “introduce

evidence” about the “overall reasonableness of its reinvestigation procedure.” This concern is misplaced because there are no facts that Experian

could produce that would alter our conclusion: A reinvestigation that overlooks documents in a court file, which expressly state that no adverse

judgment was entered, is negligent as a matter of law. 

3158 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 9 of 10
* * *

This case illustrates how important it is for Experian, a

company that traffics in the reputations of ordinary people, to

train its employees to understand the legal significance of the

documents they rely on. See generally Rudy Kleysteuber,

Note, Tenant Screening Thirty Years Later: A Statutory Proposal To Protect Public Records, 116 Yale L.J. 1344, 1356-64

(2007). Because Experian negligently failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, we grant summary judgment to Dennis on this claim. We remand only so that the district court

may calculate damages and award attorney’s fees.5 As to all

other claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we reverse

summary judgment for Experian and remand for trial. Dennis

is also entitled to attorney’s fees for an entirely successful

appeal. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o(a)(2). We refer the case to the

Appellate Commissioner for determination of the amount of

fees. 

REVERSED and REMANDED. REFERRED TO THE

APPELLATE COMMISSIONER FOR DETERMINATION OF ATTORNEY’S FEES.

5Because we grant summary judgment to Dennis on his claim that

Experian negligently failed to reinvestigate, the district court shall award

Dennis fees for that claim under section 1681o(a)(2). 

DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 3159

Case: 04-56230 03/27/2008 ID: 6485446 DktEntry: 50-1 Page: 10 of 10