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

OSIAS TORION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00422-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint came on for 

hearing before this court on June 28, 2017. Plaintiff Osias Torion appeared through his 

counsel, Elliot Gale. Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. (“Chase”), erroneously sued as 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, appeared through its counsel, Megan 

Rodgers and Emily Henn. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully 

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS 

the motion to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE, for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND

A. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows debtors with regular income to “repay creditors in 

part, or in whole, over the course of a three-to-five-year period.” In re Blendheim, 803 

F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2015). Under Chapter 13, the debtor proposes a debt repayment 

plan that must comply with a number of statutory requirements. Id. at 485–86. “A 

Chapter 13 debtor seeking a discharge typically proposes a plan in which the discharge 

is granted at the end of the proceeding, after the debtor completes all required payments 

under the plan.” Id. at 486. If the Chapter 13 plan satisfies all of the statutory 

requirements, the bankruptcy court approves or “confirms” the plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a); 

In re Flores, 735 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir. 2013).
2

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

If the debtor makes the payments under the confirmed plan, the bankruptcy court 

will grant a discharge of the debts, which “releases debtors from personal liability on 

claims and enjoins creditors from taking any action against the debtor.” Blendheim, 803 

F.3d at 486–87. “Many debtors, however, fail to complete a Chapter 13 plan 

successfully.” Harris v. Viegelahn, 135 S. Ct. 1829, 1835 (2015). If the debtor fails to 

make the required payments, he may either “convert [the] Chapter 13 case to a 

[bankruptcy] case under a different chapter,” or dismiss the action. Blendheim, 803 F.3d 

at 487. The effect of dismissal is to restore the legal status quo prior to the Chapter 13 

filing: “dismissal returns to the creditor all the property rights he held at the 

commencement of the Chapter 13 proceeding and renders him free to exercise any 

nonbankruptcy collection remedies.” Id. at 487. 

B. Procedural History

This case is one of over 200 similar actions in this district filed by the Sagaria Law 

firm against consumer credit reporting agencies and credit furnishers in 2016 and 2017. 

On March 20, 2017, this court dismissed a substantially similar complaint in Burrows v. 

Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 16-CV-06356-PJH, 2017 WL 1046973 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 

2017) (“Burrows”). Burrows described the factual context as follows:

Plaintiffs are individuals who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and allege that 

their debts were reported inaccurately in light of their confirmed Chapter 13 

plan. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), Equifax, Inc. 

(“Equifax”), or both credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) are named as 

defendants. Also named as defendants in most of the cases are 

“furnishers” of credit information, such as [Chase] . . . .

The complaint accuses CRAs and furnishers of “ignor[ing] credit reporting 

industry standards for accurately reporting bankruptcies.” Allegedly, this 

inaccurate reporting is an effort to perpetuate the “myth” that filing for

bankruptcy ruins consumers’ credit scores for years. 

The complaint explains in some detail how a consumer’s FICO credit score 

is calculated, and how the score derives from information that furnishers 

report to CRAs. Plaintiffs then describe the Metro 2 credit reporting 

standards promulgated by the Consumer Data Industry Association (the 

“Metro 2 standards” or “CDIA guidelines”), which plaintiffs allege is the 

“industry standard for accurate credit reporting.” The Metro 2 standards 
3

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

have different “CII indicator” codes that are used to note the filing and 

discharge of Chapter 7 and 13 petitions. Plaintiffs allege that the CII 

indictor “D” is used when a Chapter 13 petition has been filed, but no 

discharge yet entered.

The complaint alleges that, prior to the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, 

the “accepted credit reporting standard” is to “report the outstanding 

balance amount as of the date of filing” of the bankruptcy petition, and to 

note the bankruptcy filing with CII indicator code D. Post-confirmation, 

however, plaintiffs allege that the balances should be updated to reflect the 

confirmed Chapter 13 plan. Reporting ongoing past due amounts and late 

payments, instead of only indicator D, is “not generally accepted as 

accurate by the credit reporting industry.”

Burrows, 2017 WL 1046973 at *1–*2 (citations omitted).

The original complaint in this case was filed by Torion against Chase and Equifax, 

Inc. on January 26, 2017. Dkt. 1. Following this court’s order in Burrows, Torion filed his

first amended complaint (the “FAC”) on April 28, 2017. Dkt. 23. The parties 

subsequently stipulated to the dismissal of Equifax. Dkt. 34. Chase now moves to

dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 25.

C. The FAC’s Allegations

The FAC largely follows the template pleading used in these cases. However, the 

allegations regarding the reported debt balances (i.e., whether the amounts owed must 

be updated to reflect the lower amounts per the confirmed Chapter 13 plan) have been 

removed. Instead, the FAC focuses on two interrelated alleged inaccuracies: (1) that 

Chase “is reporting two accounts of Plaintiff’s as being in collections and charged off 

despite the inclusion of the account in Plaintiff’s chapter 13 bankruptcy filing,” FAC ¶ 2; 

and (2) that Chase is “not following industry standards and listing the correct CII D 

indicator, as the CII should have been updated to D instead of kept as charged off and in 

collections,” FAC ¶ 96. 

Torion filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on May 31, 2012 “in order to reorganize and 

repair [his] credit worthiness and FICO score.” FAC ¶ 78. Torion’s Chapter 13 plan was 

confirmed on September 28, 2012. FAC ¶ 82. On April 21, 2012, Torion ordered a 

three-bureau credit report. FAC ¶ 86. Plaintiff noticed several inaccuracies in the reports 
4

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

regarding two Chase accounts. In particular, Chase reported Torion’s debts as in 

collections and charged off without “any reference whatsoever that the accounts had 

been included in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy.” FAC ¶¶ 88, 95.

On September 15, 2016, Torion disputed these alleged inaccuracies by contacting 

Experian. FAC ¶ 89. On October 19, 2016, plaintiff ordered a second three-bureau credit 

report to ensure that the accounts had been corrected. FAC ¶ 93. However, Chase 

continued to report the two accounts as in collections and charged off, without listing the 

CII D indicator. FAC ¶¶ 95–96, 104–105. As a result, the Chase accounts appear “to be 

in active collections whereby any lender would or could assume that Plaintiff’s wages 

could be garnished,” even though the accounts are not in active collections in light of the 

bankruptcy filing. FAC ¶¶ 99, 107. Thus, the reporting falsely makes Torion appear 

“derelict in addressing outstanding debt” and “less credit worthy” than he actually is. FAC 

¶ 107. Indeed, because Chase is “simultaneously reporting the account as in collections 

and reporting that the account is current in the payment history,” its reporting is 

“contradictory and facially inaccurate.” FAC ¶ 110.

Torion brings two claims against Chase, one under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

(“FCRA”) and one under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act 

(“CCRAA”). The FCRA claim alleges that Chase violated FCRA “by failing to conduct a 

reasonable investigation and re-reporting misleading and inaccurate information.” FAC 

¶ 115. Plaintiff alleges that any reasonable investigation would have revealed that Torion 

had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and that Chase’s reporting was not comporting with 

industry standards. FAC ¶¶ 117, 132. The second cause of action under CCRAA 

alleges that Chase “intentionally and knowingly reported misleading and inaccurate 

account information to the CRAs that did not comport with well-established industry 

standards.” FAC ¶ 154.

///

///

///
5

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

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests for the 

legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 

1191, 1199–1200 (9th Cir. 2003). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim, a complaint generally must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which 

requires that a complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if the 

plaintiff fails to state a cognizable legal theory, or has not alleged sufficient facts to 

support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 

(9th Cir. 1990). The court is to “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and 

construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Outdoor 

Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 899–900 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Legally conclusory statements, not supported by actual factual allegations, need 

not be accepted by the court. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). The 

allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

and quotations omitted). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). “[W]here the wellpleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of 

misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679. 

In the event dismissal is warranted, it is generally without prejudice, unless it is 

clear the complaint cannot be saved by any amendment. See Sparling v. Daou, 411 F.3d 

1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005). “Leave to amend may also be denied for repeated failure to 

cure deficiencies by previous amendment.” Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 

733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008).
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ANALYSIS

Chase’s motion argues that the allegations in Torion’s FAC are materially 

indistinguishable from those in Burrows, and must be dismissed for two reasons. First,

Chase asserts that there is nothing inaccurate about the information furnished because 

all of Torion’s credit reports prominently disclose the existence of the pending Chapter 13 

bankruptcy. As a result, no reasonable potential creditor could be misled by Chase’s 

reporting. Second, Chase claims that the FAC does not allege any recoverable statutory 

or actual damages under FCRA. The court finds that the FAC does not plausibly plead 

an inaccuracy and GRANTS Chase’s motion to dismiss on that basis. As a result, the 

court need not reach the damages issue. 

A. Chase’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

As a preliminary matter, for the reasons below and those stated on the record at 

the hearing, the court GRANTS Chase’s administrative motion for leave to file Torion’s 

three credit reports under seal. The court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal 

these documents because the information in the reports is private in nature, and its public 

filing could expose Torion to identity theft. See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle 

Corp., No. C01-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) 

(“protect[ing] an individual’s privacy interest” and “prevent[ing] exposure to harm or 

identity theft” are “compelling reasons” to seal); Burton v. Nationwide Mortg. LLC, No. 

1:13-cv-00307 LJO JLT, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124336, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) 

(granting motion to seal credit report).

Moreover, although the credit reports were not attached to the complaint, the court 

will consider them on Chase’s motion to dismiss pursuant to the incorporation by 

reference doctrine. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (nonpleading documents may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the complaint “refers 

extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim”).

Torion does not dispute the authenticity of the credit reports or otherwise oppose the 

court’s consideration of this evidence.
7

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

Chase also asks the court to take judicial notice of filings from Torion’s bankruptcy 

case. The proceedings of other courts are properly subject to judicial notice and the 

court therefore GRANTS this request. See Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. 

Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001). Chase merely uses these documents to 

establish that Torion had not completed his Chapter 13 plan or obtained a discharge 

when the FAC was filed.

B. Whether the FAC Plausibly Alleges an Actual Inaccuracy

Plaintiff’s FCRA claim is made pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1618s-2(b). Under 

§ 1618s-2(b), after receiving a notice of dispute from a CRA, a furnisher must conduct a 

reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information and report the results to 

the CRA. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 

2009). FCRA creates a private right of action for willful or negligent noncompliance with 

this “reinvestigation” requirement. Id. at 1154.

To state a reinvestigation claim under FCRA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he 

found an inaccuracy in his credit report; (2) he notified a CRA; (3) the CRA notified the 

furnisher of the information about the dispute; and (4) the furnisher and/or CRA failed to 

reasonably investigate the inaccuracy. Biggs v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 5:16-CV01507-EJD, 2016 WL 5235043, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016); Gorman, 584 F.3d at 

1154–57.

An actual inaccuracy is a required element of an FCRA claim. Carvalho v. Equifax 

Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although the FCRA’s 

reinvestigation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, does not on its face require that an actual 

inaccuracy exist for a plaintiff to state a claim, many courts, including our own, have 

imposed such a requirement.”); Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1163 (“[A] furnisher does not report 

‘incomplete or inaccurate’ information within the meaning of § 1681s–2(b) simply by 

failing to report a meritless dispute.”). To be inaccurate, information must be either 

“patently incorrect” or “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.
8

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

1. This Court’s Ruling in Burrows

Torion’s FCRA claim is based on two related inaccuracies. First, the FAC alleges 

that Chase “is reporting two accounts of Plaintiff’s as being in collections and charged off 

despite the inclusion of the account in Plaintiff’s chapter 13 bankruptcy filing.” FAC ¶ 2. 

Second, the FAC generally alleges that Chase is “not following industry standards” 

because it did not report “the correct CII D indicator.” FAC ¶ 96. 

In its decision in Burrows, this court has already ruled on the legal issues raised in

this motion. As to whether reporting an account as “in collections,” not reporting the 

existence of the bankruptcy proceeding, or not reporting a CII D indicator could be 

misleading under FCRA, the court held:

[P]laintiffs allege that defendants’ failure to report a CII D indicator, failure to 

note that an account is being disputed, and/or reporting a debt as “in 

collections”/“charged off” are inaccurate. The court finds that several of 

these inaccuracies may state a claim under FCRA, but that the complaint’s 

allegations are too conclusory as currently pleaded. 

The first issue is whether the failure to report to a CII D indicator, or to 

otherwise note that a bankruptcy petition has been filed, makes reporting 

“inaccurate” under FCRA. The court finds that the complaint could state a 

claim on this basis. If the fact of the bankruptcy is not noted, the reporting 

may be misleading, because the existence of a bankruptcy filing is 

information that could affect the decision-making of potential creditors. 

See, e.g., Doster, 2017 WL 264401, at *6 (granting leave to amend to 

support allegations that the credit report “contained no indication at all that 

the debts were the subject of a pending bankruptcy”). Moreover, the 

omission of the bankruptcy filing from a credit report may render other 

aspects of the reporting misleading. For example, if a creditor sees that an 

account is “in collections,” but no bankruptcy filing is noted, the creditor may 

believe that the account is being actively collected upon even though 

collection efforts have been stayed by the bankruptcy. . . .

As to the allegations that accounts were reported as “in collections” or 

“charged off,” the complaint does not contain enough detail to determine 

whether this inaccuracy could state a claim under FCRA. Without more 

context, it is not clear whether plaintiffs claim that the furnishers are 

reporting that the account is currently in collections (which is potentially 

misleading in light of the bankruptcy stay) or simply that the account was in 

collections at some point in the past. The latter would not be misleading, 

assuming that it is factually accurate and that the bankruptcy filing is noted.
9

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

In summary, although the court finds that these alleged inaccuracies could 

state a claim under FCRA, the complaint as pleaded is too conclusory to 

tell. With only a few sentences devoted to each disputed account, it is not 

clear whether a reasonable potential creditor could actually be misled. It is 

not clear, for example, if there is any other information in the credit report 

that discloses the existence of the bankruptcy filing. Thus, the court will 

provide plaintiffs leave to amend to plead additional factual detail to state a 

plausible claim that these alleged inaccuracies were misleading in context.

Burrows, 2017 WL 1046973 at *8. To resolve this motion, the court need only 

apply these principles to the specific allegations in Torion’s FAC.

2. Whether Reporting the Chase Accounts as “in Collections” and/or Not 

Using the CII D Indicator is Plausibly Alleged as Misleading

Burrows held that reporting an account as in collections and not reporting the CII D 

indicator despite a pending chapter 13 bankruptcy “could state a claim under FCRA.” 

Burrows, 2017 WL 1046973 at *8. The court reasoned that if “no bankruptcy filing is 

noted, the creditor may believe that the account is being actively collected upon even 

though collection efforts have been stayed by the bankruptcy.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Thus, while the court in Burrows found that reporting an account subject to a 

Chapter 13 bankruptcy as “in collections” could be misleading in context, that holding was 

based on the assumption that a potential creditor was not otherwise informed of the 

pending bankruptcy. Here, Chase rightly points out that all three credit reports 

prominently disclose the existence of Torion’s bankruptcy filing in the “Public Records” 

section. See Dkt. 27 Ex. A at 26; Ex. B at 23; Ex. C at 19. Moreover, all of the reports 

further indicate that there are “[n]o collection accounts” in the “Collections” section. Id.

Ex. A at 24; Ex. B at 21; Ex. C at 17. Finally, all the reports indicate on the “Account 

Summary” page that Torion has “$0” in credit debt. Id. Ex. A at 2; Ex. B at 2; Ex. C. at 2. 

All of this reporting is consistent with Torion’s pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy

proceeding, and directly informs potential creditors of the existence of the bankruptcy.

Fundamentally, plaintiff must allege that Chase’s reporting was “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. Plaintiff claims that Chase’s reporting is 
10

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

inaccurate because Equifax’s credit report indicates that the Chase accounts are “in 

active collections,” making Torion appear “less credit worthy” and potentially misleading 

creditors to conclude that that Torion’s “wages could be garnished,” FAC ¶¶ 98–99, 107. 

The court finds that these allegations are not plausible in light of the full context of the

actual reporting in the credit reports. 

It is true that, in the Equifax report, the specific Chase accounts are described as 

“placed for collection” and “charged off.” Dkt. 27 Ex. A at 12–13.1 However, when read 

in context, this reporting is not misleading because the bankruptcy is clearly disclosed

elsewhere in the credit report. This eliminates the possibility that a lender would be 

misled by the reporting. See In re Experian Info. Sols. Credit Reporting Litig., No. C 16-

05674 WHA, 2017 WL 1319843, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017) (“[The] credit reports 

also include a clear-cut statement up front that the debtor is in bankruptcy proceedings, 

. . . so there is no basis for insisting as a matter of law that such a notation accompany 

each line item.”); Mestayer v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 15-CV-03645-EMC, 2016 WL 

7188015, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016) (“[T]he disclosure of the bankruptcy filing 

vitiates the risk that any deviation from Metro 2 could be misleading . . . .”); but see

Cristobal v. Equifax, Inc., No. 16-CV-06329-JST, 2017 WL 1489274, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

26, 2017) (“The Court sees no reason why Plaintiff could not ultimately prove that the 

lack of a D code adversely affected her credit even if her credit report otherwise noted the 

fact of her bankruptcy.”).

Instead, a potential creditor would more naturally understand Chase’s reporting to 

mean only that the account was previously referred to collections, but that it is no longer 

being collected on because of the bankruptcy filing. Indeed, all of the credit reports state 

that Torion has no accounts in collections, and the balance on the accounts is $0. These 

facts belie plaintiff’s allegation that the Chase accounts are being inaccurately reported 

 

1

The Chase accounts are reported differently in the Experian and Trans Union reports. 

The Experian report contains a notation that the “[d]ebt [is] included in or discharged 

through bankruptcy chapter 13.” Id. Ex. B at 9–10. In the Trans Union report, the same 

field indicates that the “payment status” is “wage earner or similar plan.” Id. Ex. C at 7–8.
11

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

as “in active collections.” FAC ¶ 98. Thus, even construing the FAC in the light most 

favorable to the pleader, Torion fails to allege a plausible inaccuracy regarding the Chase

accounts. Since an inaccuracy is a required element, the FAC therefore does not state a 

claim under FCRA.

Finally, to the extent that Torion’s claim is based solely on an alleged failure to 

comport with credit industry reporting guidelines, the court has already rejected this 

theory. See Burrows, 2017 WL 1046973 at *7 (“[N]oncompliance with Metro 2 standards 

does not, in and of itself, render reporting misleading” because “FCRA does not mandate 

compliance with Metro 2 or any other particular set of industry standards.”). That ruling 

accords with the weight of persuasive authority in this district. See id. (citing cases).

3. The CCRAA Claim

The parties agree, and this court has previously held, that the CCRAA claim rises 

and falls with the FCRA claim because CCRAA “mirrors” FCRA. Guimond, 45 F.3d at 

1335; Olson v. Six Rivers Nat’l Bank, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1, 12 (2003). Because the FAC

does not state a claim under FCRA, the CCRAA claim fails as well.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Chase’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Because 

plaintiff has already been afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint following this 

court’s decision in Burrows, and was still unable to state a claim, the dismissal is WITH 

PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2017

_________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge