Opinion ID: 1211200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court Erred by Misinterpreting Ojo's Complaint

Text: When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson, 353 F.3d 824, 826 (9th Cir.2004); Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir.2004). As the district court acknowledged, this requires a reviewing court to construe the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ojo v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2006 WL 4552707 at  (citing Doe v. Mann, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1232 (N.D.Cal. 2003)). Ojo's Complaint alleges that Farmers' credit scoring system has a disparate impact on minorities because it uses a number of undisclosed factors and has resulted in minorities [being] charged higher premiums for [p]olicies than Caucasians. Nowhere does the Complaint challenge credit scoring per se. Despite the lucidity of the Complaint, the district court nonetheless concluded that Ojo challenges the very practice of credit scoring. [10] Ojo at . On that basis, the district court concluded that, if Ojo prevailed, then his victory would likely render ineffective and certainly frustrate and interfere withTexas's . . . use of credit scoring models that are actuarially sound. [11] Id. Read in the light most favorable to Ojo, the Complaint does not advance an all or nothing challenge to the practice of credit scoring. The Complaint alleges only that certain undisclosed factors used by Farmers in its credit scoring system produces a disparate impact on minorities. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding that Ojo's claim impaired Texas state law because the claim challenged credit scoring per se.