Opinion ID: 687345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Violations of CCRAA, Sec. 1785.1 et seq.

Text: 38 The CCRAA mirrors the provisions of the FCRA. The district court held that Trans Union was not liable for Guimond's CCRAA claims under the following analysis: 39 The seventh and eighth causes of action allege violations of CCRAA Sec. 1785.31(a) for failure to correct information in the credit report found to be inaccurate. Sec. 1785.31(a) states: 40 If a reinvestigation is made and, after reinvestigation, the disputed item of information is found to be ... inaccurate ... the consumer credit reporting agency shall promptly add, correct, or delete such information from the consumer's file. 41 Defendant argues for summary judgment reasoning that there can be no disputed item of information because plaintiff was never denied credit based on Trans Union consumer report. An item of information is any of one or more informative entries in a credit report which causes a creditor to deny credit to an applicant or increase the cost of credit to an applicant.... Civil Code Sec. 1785.3(g). Plaintiff replies that she was damaged, not by a denial of credit based on a Trans Union consumer report, but by a disclosure of her credit file. The evidence indicates that defendant corrected inaccuracies in Plaintiff's report each time it was informed of an error. The fact that multiple errors existed does not show that defendant refused to correct the mistake or changed the entries back to the incorrect data, but rather indicates the unfortunate extent to which defendant's reporting system was plagued with errors. 42 Not only is the above paragraph technically inaccurate, but it is unsupported by the record. Section 1785.31(a) actually states: Any consumer who suffers damages as a result of a violation of this title by any person may bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction against that person to recover the following: .... In addition, there is no evidence to support the proposition that Trans Union corrected the errors in Guimond's file. Indeed, since the errors kept appearing in her file, they could not have been corrected. 43 Appellee argues that the district court's opinion should be affirmed because by using the term applicant and defining an Item of Information to include only those items in a credit report which cause a denial of credit, the California Legislature sent a clear message that there could be recovery only if an item of information caused damage. Appellee claims that the term applicant is defined by Civil Code Sec. 1785.2(e)(1) as a natural person who applies for credit primarily for personal, family or household purposes. 44 Appellee's statutory citations are erroneous: Sec. 1785.2(e)(1) does not exist. Section 1785.2 states [t]his act may be referred to as the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. In an earlier version of Appellee's papers, the above definition of an Item of Information was said to be contained in Sec. 1787.2(e)(1). However, Sec. 1787 is not part of the CCRAA, and any reference to applicant was deleted from the CCRAA in 1992. Accordingly, Appellee's arguments are completely groundless. 45 Guimond's papers are also unhelpful because she has not indicated the portion of the CCRAA under which she has brought suit. 46 Since the CCRAA mirrors the FCRA, Guimond should be successful on the same claims under the identical provisions of the CCRAA. Essentially, Guimond is claiming that the disputed information was not removed from her file. However, absent an indication of which provisions of the CCRAA Guimond alleges were violated, this court cannot resolve her claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on Appellant's CCRAA claims.