Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

JAMES CATRO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SOLARI ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Defendant. Case No.: 

 (Related Case Nos.) 20STCV37084

20STCV27865, 20STCV28618, 

20STCV31561, 20STCV35759, 

20STCV36998,

20STCV7008,

20STCV37080, 20STCV37073,

20STCV33566,

20STCV39159, and 

20STCV45923

PLAINTIFFS JAMES AND MARY CASTRO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs are each awarded $10,000 in statutory damages under ICRAA. 

Plaintiffs are permitted to file a memorandum of cost and a noticed motion for attorney fees to recover such costs pursuant to Civil Code § 1786.50(a)(2).   

The parties are ordered present at the hearing (remotely or in person) to discuss the remaining causes of action.

Moving party to provide notice. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is an action for violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”). The Complaint alleges as follows. 

Defendant Solari Enterprises, Inc. (“Solari”) owns and operates the Courson Arts Colony Apartments (the “Subject Property”) located at 931 and 939 E. Avenue Q12, Palmdale, California. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs James and Mary Castro reside at the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 6.) 

Solari requested and procured investigative consumer reports on Plaintiff without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorizations contrary to the ICRAA. (Compl. ¶ 14.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting four causes of action:

1. Violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”); 

2. Unfair Business Practices, and; 

3. Declaratory Relief. 

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Summary Adjudication. 

Defendants did not oppose the instant motion.

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs move for Summary Adjudication of their First Cause of Action for Violation of the ICRAA. 

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial.¿(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843). In analyzing such motions, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”¿(Hinesley¿v.¿Oakshade¿Town Center¿(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294). Thus, summary judgment or summary adjudication is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.¿(CCP § 437c(c);¿Villa v.¿McFarren¿(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741).¿ 

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the party¿moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element.¿(Scalf¿v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc.¿(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520). Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”¿(Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389). A motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be denied where the moving party's evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition or where the opposition is weak.¿(See¿Leyva v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475;¿Salesguevara¿v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.¿¿¿ 

Once the¿moving¿party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party¿to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto.¿(CCP § 437c(o)(2)).¿When¿a¿party¿cannot¿establish an essential element or defense, a court must grant a motion for summary adjudication.¿(CCP § 437c(o)(1)-(2)).¿ 

A. First Cause of Action – Violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act

Plaintiffs move for Summary Adjudication of their First Cause of Action for Violation of the ICRAA. 

The purpose of the ICRAA is “to ensure that consumer reporting agencies ‘exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy.’” (Connor v. First Student, Inc (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1026, 1032.) “[T]he statute defines an ‘investigative consumer report’ as one ‘in which information on a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through any means.’” (Id., citing Civ. Code, § 1786.2(c).)  

Pursuant to the ICRAA, any person who requests an investigative consumer report on a prospective tenant must comply with the following requirements: (1) “notify the consumer in writing that an investigative consumer report will be made regarding the consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living” within “three days after the date on which the report was first requested” (Civ. Code, § 1786.16(a)(3)); (2) “include the name and address of the investigative consumer reporting agency that will prepare the report and a summary of the provisions of Section 1786.22” (Id.); (3) “certify to the investigative consumer reporting agency” that “the applicable disclosures” were made to the consumer (Civ. Code § 1786.16(a)(4)); (4) “provide the consumer a means by which the consumer may indicate on a written form, by means of a box to check, that the consumer wishes to receive a copy of any report that is prepared” (Civ. Code, § 1786.16(b)(1)); and (5) “send a copy of the report to the consumer within three business days of the date that the report is provided to the recipient.” (Id.) 

Here, Plaintiffs argue that Solari has already conceded violation of the ICRAA. Plaintiffs note that, in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Solari admits that it failed to provide copies of any of the numerous reports it got about Plaintiffs (UMF 10, 21, 29, 40, 48, 54); failed to provide Plaintiffs with the name or address of the investigative consumer reporting agency that prepared the reports (UMF 4, 28, 36); and failed to provide the required checkbox with regard to any of the reports. (UMF 3, 14, 21.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have met their initial burden by providing evidence showing that there are not triable issues of material fact as to whether Solari violated the ICRAA. The burden now shifts to Solari to show such triable issues of material fact. Solari did not oppose this motion and therefore fails to meet its burden of proving a triable issue of material fact remains over whether it violated the ICRAA.

B. Amount of Damages

Next, Plaintiffs contend that each Plaintiff should be awarded $40,000 in damages, representing a $10,000 civil penalty for violation of ICRAA for each consumer report run against Plaintiffs. 

In ruling on this manner in a related case, Sheila Gregory, et al v. Solari Enterprises, Inc., et al, this Court found:

[S]tatutory damages pursuant to Civil Code § 1786.50(a) are limited to “per action”, not “per report.” When applying civil penalties, the narrowest construction must be given. (Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 405-406.) Plaintiff concedes that a single primary right has been violated. (Motion at pg. 13.) Even if a single primary right has been violated multiple times, it remains a single cause of action, limiting the extent of recovery through a statutory penalty. (Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 988, 1004-1008.) Thus, because the ICRAA violations constitute a single cause of action, Plaintiffs are each limited to $10,000 under Civil Code § 1786.50(a)(1). (RFJN Ex. C at p. 40.)

The Court sees no reason to deviate from that ruling here.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are each entitled to a single, $10,000 award under ICRAA.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs are each awarded $10,000 in statutory damages under ICRAA. 

Plaintiffs are permitted to file a memorandum of cost and a noticed motion for attorney fees to recovery such costs pursuant to Civil Code § 1786.50(a)(2).   

DATED:  August 21, 2023

___________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court