Raymond Alvandi v. Experian Information Solutions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND ALVANDI, No. 15-56070
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:14-cv-04379-DSF-AJW
v.
FIDELITY CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., a MEMORANDUM*
California corporation,
Defendant,
and
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 9, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Plaintiff Raymond Alvandi appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(“Experian”) on Alvandi’s claims that Experian violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Szajer v.
City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court must determine,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, whether
there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly
applied the relevant substantive law. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363
F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004).
Liability under Alvandi’s FCRA claims requires a prima facie showing of
inaccurate reporting. See Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890
(9th Cir. 2010). Here, Alvandi raises multiple theories as to why his Experian
credit reports were inaccurate. To the extent Alvandi argues that his Experian
credit reports were inaccurate because they reported a debt that he was not legally
obligated to pay or a debt that contained charges not permitted by law, these
challenges are insufficient to establish that the reports were inaccurate within the
2
meaning of the FCRA. Id. at 892 (holding that FCRA claims against credit
reporting agencies “are not the proper vehicle for collaterally attacking the legal
validity of consumer debts”). To the extent Alvandi raises new theories as to why
his Experian credit reports were inaccurate in response to Experian’s summary
judgment motion, and these theories were not pled in Alvandi’s complaint, the
Court concludes that these belated theories lack merit and are insufficient to defeat
Experian’s motion for summary judgment. See Wasco Prods., Inc. v. Southwall
Techs., Inc., 435 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Simply put, summary judgment is
not a procedural second chance to flesh out inadequate pleadings.”).
AFFIRMED.
3