FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON DENNIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 04-56230 BEH-1, LLC, a limited liability

company in the State of D.C. No.

California,  CV-03-07064-R

Defendant, ORDER AND

and OPINION

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,

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

Before: Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and

Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Kozinski

13097
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 13099
ORDER

The petition for rehearing is granted. The previous opinion,

485 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2007), is withdrawn and replaced by

the opinion filed concurrently herewith. Either party may file

a new petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.

OPINION

KOZINSKI, Circuit 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

that a “Civil Claim judgment” had been entered against him

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

13100 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
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))). 

DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 13101
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.

13102 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
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 DenDENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 13103
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. 

13104 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS
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). Whether Experian’s failure was also willful, in violation of section 1681n, is a question for the jury on remand. 

* * *

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.4 As to all

4Because 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). In regard to Dennis’s

other federal claims, which we remand for trial, the district court shall give

Dennis an opportunity to argue that he is owed fees under sections

1681o(b) and 1681n(c) for work done in response to motions filed in bad

faith. Dennis may be able to show that Experian acted in bad faith when

it withdrew its initial admission that no judgment had been entered against

Dennis. 

DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS 13105
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.

13106 DENNIS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS