Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23VECV00924, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23VECV00924    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 45

HASSAN AMINGHAZAEI vs DISCOVER

defendant discover bank’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication

Date of Hearing:        June 12, 2025                                     Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        23VECV00924

Moving Party:            Defendant Discover Bank

Responding Party:     No opposition

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Hassan Aminghazaei brought this instant action for violation of California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Civil Code §1785.25 and unfair competition against Defendant Discover Bank (erroneously sued as “Discover”) (“Defendant”) on March 1, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend. (Minute Order, 07/13/23.) On March 28, 2024, the case was reclassified and transferred to a limited jurisdiction department.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Discover Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant Discover Bank requests this court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Complaint, Filed by Plaintiff Hassan Aminghazaei on March 1, 2023 (Exh. 1); (2) Discover’s Demurrer as to the Second Cause of Action in the Complaint of Plaintiff Hassan Aminghazaei (Exh. 2); (3) Discover’s Notice of Ruling on the Demurrer as to the Second Cause of Action in the Complaint of Plaintiff Hassan Aminghazaei (Exh. 3); (4) Discover’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted (Exh. 4); and (5) Discover’s Notice of Ruling and the Court’s order granting Discover’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted (Exh. 5.)

The court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice.

discussion

Defendant Discover Bank moves for the court for an order granting summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication with respect to all causes of action and claims asserted by Plaintiff Hassan Aminghazaei on the grounds there are no genuine disputes of material fact and Discover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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 motions for summary judgment, 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 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 defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (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 must be denied where the moving party's evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition (Leyva v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475) or where the opposition is weak.  (Salesguevara v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.)   

The complaint asserts a single cause of action pursuant to Civil Code section 1785.25(a), which provides: “[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.”

Defendant Discover Bank argues Discover furnished completely accurate information regarding the account and the alleged inaccuracies did not cause plaintiff any actionable harm. Defendant presents evidence of the following: Plaintiff Hassan Aminghazaei opened an account with Discover Bank ending in 8016. (UMF 1.) A charge in the amount of $599.00 was incurred on the Account on June 2, 2022, placed by the merchant, LZ Divorce Service. (UMF 2.) Plaintiff disputed the LZ charge in June of 2022. (UMF 3.) Plaintiff admitted authorizing a charge from LZ Divorce Service. (UMF 4.) Discover opened an investigation into the LZ Charge. (UMF 5.) LZ Divorce Service provided documentation to Discover to support the LZ Charge, including transaction information, order/customer information, terms and conditions, and a screenshot of LZ Divorce Service’s check-out webpage. (UMF 6.) Discover reviewed the information provided by LZ Divorce Service and determined that the LZ Charge was authorized. (UMF 7.) Plaintiff disputed the LZ Charge again on December 26, 2022. (UMF 8.) Discover opened a fraud investigation into the LZ Charge. (UMF 9.) Discover attempted to contact Plaintiff by telephone but was unable, informing him via letter dated January 12, 2023, that it needed additional information to continue the investigation. (UMF 10.) Discover completed its investigation of the LZ Charge and determined that no fraud had occurred, sending Plaintiff a letter dated January 27, 2023. (UMF 11.) Plaintiff admitted that Discover accurately reported the balance of the Account. (UMF 12.) Plaintiff noticed what he believed to be adverse, incomplete, and inaccurate information on his credit report on February 28, 2023. (UMF 13.) Plaintiff contends Discover’s reporting on the account was false because Discover reported his dispute of the Account was “now resolved”. (UMF 14.) Discover reported compliance condition code “XC” with respect to the Account in January, February, and March of 2023. (UMF 15.) Compliance condition code “XC” in the Metro 2 format means “Completed investigation of FCRA Dispute; consumer disagrees.” (UMF 16.) Plaintiff admitted that Discover did not violate Civil Code § 1785.25 in any way related to the Account. (UMF 17.) Plaintiff was not harmed by any information furnished by Discover to a credit reporting agency relating to the Account. (UMF 18.) No credit applications that Plaintiff submitted have been denied due to information furnished by Discover relating to the Account. (UMF 19.) Plaintiff’s credit score did not decrease due to information furnished by Discover relating to the Account. (UMF 20.)

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Discover furnished incomplete or inaccurate information which would support a claim for violation of Civil Code section 1785.25(a). Defendant’s requests for admission served upon Plaintiff were deemed admitted by court order on August 13, 2024. (Armstrong Decl. ¶4.) These requests for admission affirmatively establish that Discover accurately reported the balance of the Account. (UMF 12.) The motion is unopposed.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.