Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 23STLC07288, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC07288    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, January 16, 2024

Case Name:                             JASON ALAN v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC; DOES 1-10 inclusive

Case No.:                                23STLC07288

Motion:                                   Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint

Moving Party:                         Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff Jason Alan

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant Equifax Information Services’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint is OVERRULED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          Filed as of January 02, 2024                           [   ] Late          [   ] None 

REPLY:                     Filed as of January 08, 2024                           [   ] Late          [   ] None 

BACKGROUND

A. Factual

Plaintiff Jason Alan (“Plaintiff”) filed a cause of action against Defendant Equifax Information Services (“Defendant”) for violations of California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Plaintiff alleges that at multiple times in 2023, before filing his complaint Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant that Plaintiff disputes the accuracy and completeness of alleged derogatory information reported on his credit report. While Plaintiff disputes the accuracy of the alleged debt, Defendants have failed to provide a satisfactory response to Plaintiff’s letters, investigate Plaintiff’s dispute, or revise Plaintiff’s credit report to indicate that the alleged debts are contested.

B. Procedural

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint against Defendant for alleging violation of the CCCRAA § 1785.16.

On December 18, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer with Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendant prays for the Court to sustain their motion to demurrer as to Plaintiff’s complaint as Plaintiff does not provide any specificity as to the facts that give rise to Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff omits any references to his legal residency. Secondly Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify the false information on which his cause of action is based as it does not identify the item of information, nor does it explain why the alleged information is inaccurate.

OPPOSITION

            In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant uses an improper legal standard to support the basis for its demurrer. Plaintiff argues that the issue of whether Plaintiff is a resident of California is a factual inquiry inappropriate for the purposes of a demurrer. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff’s alleged misreported information is inaccurate or harmful is a factual inquiry.

REPLY

            In reply, Defendant reasserts that Plaintiff does not establish residency and that Plaintiff attempts to circumvent any residency allegations by broadly alleging that the events occurred in California. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot state a CCRAA claim without specifying the (1) alleged debt and (2) inaccuracy at issue.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

 “The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 128.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

II. Discussion

            A. Meet and Confer Requirement

The demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a).)

Here the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). Defendants’ counsel, Alice Hodsden states that she attempted to conduct a “meet and confer” with Plaintiff prior to filing. (Patrick Torsney Decl. ¶ 1.) Counsel avers that Plaintiff did not respond to the request to the meet and confer. As a result, the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the demurrer, necessitating Defendant filing of the demurrer. (Id. ¶ 2.) Thus, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement is satisfied under CCP § 430.41(a).

B. Causes of Action

Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff fails to provide any specificity as to the facts that give rise to Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff omits any references to his legal residency. Secondly Plaintiff’s complaint does not identify the false information on which his cause of action is based as it does not identify the item of information, nor does it explain specifically what alleged information is inaccurate.

Plaintiff brings a cause of action for failure to investigate disputes contained within Plaintiff’s Credit report in violation of Civil Code §§ 1785.16 and 1785.25. Civil Code § 1785.16(a), (d), (e), & (g) provides that,

(a) If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in his or her file is disputed by a consumer, and the dispute is conveyed directly to the consumer credit reporting agency by the consumer or user on behalf of the consumer, the consumer credit reporting agency shall within a reasonable period of time and without charge, reinvestigate and record the current status of the disputed information before the end of the 30-business-day period beginning on the date the agency receives notice of the dispute from the consumer or user, unless the consumer credit reporting agency has reasonable grounds to believe and determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant, including by reason of a failure of the consumer to provide sufficient information, as requested by the consumer credit reporting agency, to investigate the dispute. Unless the consumer credit reporting agency determines that the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, before the end of the five-business-day period beginning on the date the consumer credit reporting agency receives notice of dispute under this section, the agency shall notify any person who provided information in dispute at the address and in the manner specified by the person. A consumer credit reporting agency may require that disputes by consumers be in writing.

…

(d) A consumer credit reporting agency shall provide written notice to the consumer of the results of any reinvestigation under this subdivision, within five days of completion of the reinvestigation. The notice shall include (1) a statement that the reinvestigation is completed, (2) a consumer credit report that is based on the consumer's file as that file is revised as a result of the reinvestigation, (3) a description or indication of any changes made in the consumer credit report as a result of those revisions to the consumer's file and a description of any changes made or sought by the consumer that were not made and an explanation why they were not made, (4) a notice that, if requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer by the consumer credit reporting agency, including the name, business address, and telephone number of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with that information, (5) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the information, (6) a notice that the consumer has the right to request that the consumer credit reporting agency furnish notifications under subdivision (h), (7) a notice that the dispute will remain on file with the agency as long as the credit information is used, and (8) a statement about the details of the dispute will be furnished to any recipient as long as the credit information is retained in the agency's data base. A consumer credit reporting agency shall provide the notice pursuant to this subdivision respecting the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of information, not later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer.

(e) The presence of information in the consumer's file that contradicts the contention of the consumer shall not, in and of itself, constitute reasonable grounds for believing the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant.

…

(g) Whenever a statement of dispute is filed, the consumer credit reporting agency shall, in any subsequent consumer credit report containing the information in question, clearly note that the information is disputed by the consumer and shall include in the report either the consumer's statement or a clear and accurate summary thereof.

…

(Civ. Code, § 1785.16.) Further Civil Code § 1785.25(a), (f), & (g) additionally provide that,  

 (a) A person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.

…

(f) Upon receiving notice of a dispute noticed pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1785.16 with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided to a consumer credit reporting agency, the person that provided the information shall (1) complete an investigation with respect to the disputed information and report to the consumer credit reporting agency the results of that investigation before the end of the 30-business-day period beginning on the date the consumer credit reporting agency receives the notice of dispute from the consumer in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1785.16 and (2) review relevant information submitted to it.

(g) A person who furnishes information to a consumer credit reporting agency is liable for failure to comply with this section, unless the furnisher establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the failure to comply with this section, the furnisher maintained reasonable procedures to comply with those provisions.

            Here, Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that multiple times in 2023, before filing his complaint, Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant of Plaintiff’s dispute of the accuracy and completeness of alleged derogatory information reported on his credit report. (Complaint ¶ 9.) Though Plaintiff disputes the accuracy of the alleged debt, as it appears on his credit report, Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to provide a satisfactory response to Plaintiff’s letters, investigate Plaintiff’s dispute, or revise Plaintiff’s credit report to indicate that the alleged debts are contested. (Complaint ¶ 13-14.) This would be enough to have a cause of action under the Civ Code. § 1785.16 as Plaintiff has alleged that he has notified Defendant about inaccuracies within his credit report and that Defendant has failed to investigate and correct the report if need be. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff to have stated facts to have a cause for action under Civ Code. § 1785.16.

            Further, it seems that Defendant misunderstands the purpose of a demurrer. A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) To the extent Defendant uses Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Co. and Wilson v. Frito–Lay N. Am., Inc., to challenge Plaintiff’s residence, this is a factual inquiry and would not be appropriate in the context of a demurrer. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint states sufficient facts to show that he has a cause of action and thus overcomes the demurrer.

Accordingly, the Demurrer is OVERRULED.

III.       Conclusion

            Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.  Defendant is ordered to file an answer within twenty (20) days of the Court’s ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.