Opinion ID: 6216406
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevant Facts and Early Procedural History

Text: In February 2010, Plaintiff submitted a housing application to Maple Square, a low-income housing development in Fremont, California. Maple Square hired Defendant, a now defunct credit reporting agency (“CRA”), to conduct a background check on Plaintiff. The housing application was denied after Maple Square received the 1 Unless otherwise noted, citations to statutes in this opinion refer to Title 15 of the United States Code. MORAN V. THE SCREENING PROS 5 background check (“the Report”) prepared by Defendant. The Report, dated February 5, 2010, revealed that Plaintiff had three dismissed criminal charges and a conviction. The conviction and two of the dismissed charges were filed in 2006, well within the seven-year period. But, importantly, the oldest dismissed charge (the “2000 Charge”) was filed in 2000 and dismissed in 2004. Plaintiff claimed, among other things, that the inclusion of the 2000 Charge in the Report was unlawful. Plaintiff filed suit in California state court on February 2, 2012, pleading causes of action under state law. On June 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which added additional causes of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Under the FCRA, a CRA, such as Defendant, is liable to a consumer, like Plaintiff, for either the negligent or willful failure to comply with any requirement under the FCRA with respect to that consumer. §§ 1681n(a), 1681o(a). Plaintiff alleged Defendant committed (grossly) negligent and willful violations of § 1681c(a) (reporting certain criminal information older than 7 years) (“Count One”); § 1681e (failing to maintain procedures designed to avoid violating § 1681c and to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information in the report) (“Count Two”); and § 1681i (failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation after an item in the report is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute) (“Count Three”). On July 5, 2012, Defendant removed the lawsuit to the district court. Defendant moved to dismiss, and the district court initially denied Defendant’s motion with regard to Count One, dismissed Count Two, and dismissed numerous state law claims. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for summary judgment. The 6 MORAN V. THE SCREENING PROS district court ultimately granted the motion for reconsideration, dismissing both Counts One and Two, and granted summary judgment to Defendant on Count Three.