Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC00596, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STLC00596 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 26
Sandford v. TransUnion, LLC, et al.
1. [Motion to Compel Discovery - Off Calendar - Moving defendant TransUnion was dismissed
on 4/25/24].
2. DEMURRER
(CCP §§ 430.10, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Experian Information Services, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.
ANALYSIS:
On January 26, 2024, Plaintiff William Sandford (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for violation of California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”) against Experian Information Services, Inc. (“Defendant”). On March 19, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition on March 25, 2024 and Defendant replied on May 2, 2024.
Discussion
Allegations in the Complaint
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a consumer and Defendant is a consumer credit reporting agency as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.3. (Compl., ¶¶5-6.) Multiple times in 2023, Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant that Plaintiff disputes the accuracy and completeness of derogatory information reported on their consumer credit report. (Id. at ¶10.) This “derogatory information includes without limitation information on alleged debts as well as mistakes in Plaintiff’s personal identifying information (collectively, “the alleged debt”).” (Id. at ¶11.) Plaintiff provided Defendant with all the necessary information to identify the alleged debt but Defendant failed to conduct an investigation. (Id. at ¶¶15-16.)
Demurrer to Complaint
The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Meet and Confer Decl., filed 03/19/24, ¶¶2-4.) Defendant demurs to the Complaint for failure to allege sufficient facts. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (e).) Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts regarding an “inaccuracy” on his credit file under the CCRAA. The Complaint does not specify which debts or information is inaccurate or in what way they are inaccurate, which is insufficient to allege an inaccuracy, which is a necessary element of the claim. In support of the Demurrer, Defendant cites Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 629 F.3d 876, as there is no California state case that considers whether a plaintiff must demonstrate that a disputed item is inaccurate to obtain relief for a violation of the CCRAA. In Carvalho, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the CCRAA’s reinvestigation provision requires a plaintiff to plead and prove an actual inaccuracy. (Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC (9th Cir. 2020) 629 F.3d 876, 890.)
Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to demonstrate an actual inaccuracy with respect to “the alleged debt.” The Complaint contends there are inaccuracies regarding alleged debts and Plaintiff’s personal information but provides no other information regarding what specific debt or personal information is inaccurate. The Complaint also alleges that Defendant was provided with the necessary information to identify “the alleged debt” but then fails to include that identifying information in the pleading. Plaintiff’s opposition is also confusing and mischaracterizes the Demurrer. First, Plaintiff argues that the Demurrer is brought on the grounds that the Complaint must aver that the item of information he disputed actually was incomplete or inaccurate. This is only a partial statement of the Demurrer which is also brought on the grounds that the information must be sufficiently identified. The opposition then confusingly refers to non-existent arguments in the Demurrer regarding defamation and Plaintiff’s California residency.
Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for violation of the reinvestigation provisions of the CCRAA. However, Plaintiff has alleged that the necessary facts to make such an allegation are in his possession so leave to amend will be allowed. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)
Conclusion
Defendant Experian Information Services, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.
Moving party to give notice.