Case Name: Kamlesh BANGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-24
Citations: 473 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 11-15460
Parties: Kamlesh BANGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 712–713

Head Matter:
Kamlesh BANGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-15460.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 24, 2012.
Kamlesh Banga, Vallejo, CA, pro se.
John Anthony Love, Esquire, Brian J. Olson, Esquire, Phyllis B. Sumner, King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, GA, Thomas P. Quinn, Jr., Nokes & Quinn APC, Laguna Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Banga’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kamlesh Banga appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Aguilera v. Baca, 510 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds because Banga failed to file her action within two years of when she knew or should have known that defendant disclosed her credit report to third parties for promotional or other improper purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681 p (action under Fair Credit Reporting Act must be filed two years after plaintiff discovers the violation or five years after the violation occurs, whichever is earlier); Cal. Civ.Code § 1785.33 (action under California Consumer Credit Reporting Act must be filed within two years after plaintiff knows or should have known of the violation but no more than seven years after the earliest violation).
Banga's remaining contentions, including her alleged claims against Cal State 9 Credit Union, are unpersuasive.
Banga's motion for referral to the court's pro bono program is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.