Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV22459, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 24STCV22459    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 57

Plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication on their cause of action against Defendant for violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA") is granted.

As a threshold matter, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that there is a disputed issue of material as to whether the Plaintiffs have standing under ICRAA.  According to Defendants, ICRAA requires the Plaintiffs to show that they suffered actual damages arising from the alleged ICRAA violations and the evidence on that point is disputed.   The Court disagrees with the Defendant's interpretation of ICRAA.  In pertinent part, ICRAA states as follows: "An investigative consumer reporting agency or user of information that fails to comply with any requirement under this title with respect to an investigative consumer report is liable to the consumer who is the subject of the report in an amount equal to the sum of all of the following (1) Any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or, except in the case of class actions, ten thousand ($10,000), whichever is greater."  (Civil Code Section 1786.50(a).)  This Court reads that provision to mean that ICRAA plaintiffs may recover the greater of either their actual damages or $10,000.  ICRAA Plaintiffs need not prove they actually were damages to recover $10,000 if that is greater than their actual damages.  Defendant's reliance on Limon v. Circle K Stores, Inc. (2022) 64 Cal.App.5th 671, for its actual damages argument is misplaced.  Limon involved the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), not ICRRA.  The relevant language of FCRA is different than ICRAA's.  It states that a FCRA plaintiff may recover "[a]ny actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the [ FCRA violations] or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000.  FCRA refers to both remedies as "damages."  By contrast, ICRAA refers only to the "actual damages" remedy as "damages."  The reference to the remedy of $10,000 is decoupled from the concept of "damages."  As such, that remedy is  akin to a statutory penalty for violations.

Turning to the evidence of the alleged violations of ICRAA, Plaintiffs' motion raises six issues for summary adjudication under ICRAA.  These six issues correspond to six allegedly different violations of ICRAA.   If there are no undisputed facts bearing on the resolution on any one of those six issues, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication. 

Defendant concedes in its response to Plaintiffs' separate statement that (other than the standing question) there are no disputed issues of material fact as to Issue 4, which posits that the Plaintiffs "are entitled to summary adjudication on the [ICRAA ] cause of action because Defendant . . . violated [ICRAA] by procuring investigative consumer reports about them without providing any written notification containing a summary of the provisions of [ICRAA]."  Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication on issue 4.

 The Court also has determined that there are no disputed issues of material fact as to issue 6, which posits that the Plaintiffs "are entitled to summary adjudication on the [ICRAA] cause of action because Defendant . . . violated [ICRAA ] by procuring investigative consumer reports about them without providing copies of the reports to [them]."  Defendant contends in # 127 in its response to Plaintiffs' separate statement that there is a disputed issue of material fact as to whether Defendant told Plaintiff Martinez that an investigative consumer report was prepared about him.  Whether that is disputed or not is irrelevant to issue 6.  Telling a consumer that  a report was prepared is different than providing the consumer with the report.  Defendant does not dispute that it failed to give Martinez (and the other two Plaintiffs) that report that was prepared.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication on issue 6 as well.

Having determined that the Plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication on issues 4 and 6, the Court need not address the other four issues raised in the Plaintiffs' motion. Either one of issues 4 or 6 are enough to warrant summary adjudication for Plaintiffs on their ICRAA cause of action.