Zaragoza v. Capital One Services, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE ZARAGOZA, No. 1:23-cv-00829 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 13 v. COURT TO CLOSE CASE 14 CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, (Doc. 7) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Jorge Zaragoza, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in Kern County Superior Court on 18 April 13, 2023, asserting a claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, 19 et seq. (Doc. 1-1.) Capital One, N.A.1 timely removed the case to this Court on May 30, 2023. 20 (Doc. 1.) 21 Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, first arguing that although it is a 22 “furnisher” of information, there is no private right of action for the violation alleged under 23 section 1681s-2(a). (Doc. 7.) Defendant cites case law supporting its position. (See id. at 7 [citing 24 Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Congress 25 limited the enforcement of duties imposed by § 1681s-2(a) to governmental bodies.”); Corby v. 26 Am. Exp. Co., 2011 WL 4625719 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011) (“It is well-settled, however, that there 27 1 Defendants assert Plaintiff erroneously sued Capital One, N.A. as “Capital One Services, LLC.” (Doc. 7 28 at 3.) 1 | is no private right of action for violations of § 1681s—2(a)”); Sui v. Southside Towing, 2011 WL 2 | 2940990 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2011) (“No private right of action exists to enforce the obligations 3 | imposed on furnishers of information under subsection (a).”’)]; see also id. at 8 [citing Pineda v. 4 | GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 2009 WL 1202885 * 4 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (court dismissed the consumer’s 5 | credit reporting-related cause of action because the FCRA does not permit a private right of 6 || action based on a consumer’s allegation that a creditor provided inaccurate information to a credit 7 | reporting agency)].) 8 Defendant also argues that while section 1681s-2(b) does provide for a private right of 9 | action, to state a claim, a consumer must allege that “1) the furnisher provided inaccurate 10 | information to the credit reporting agency (‘CRA’); 2) the CRA notified the furnisher of a 11 | dispute; and 3) the furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the accuracy of the 12 | disputed information, in light of the information provided to it by the CRA.” (Doc. 7 at 8-9 [citing 13 | cases].) Defendant asserts Plaintiff failed to allege (1) that a CRA notified Defendant of a dispute, 14 | and (2) whether Defendant conducted a reasonable investigation. (/d. at 10.) Accordingly, 15 | Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint for failing to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the 16 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ud. at 10-11.) 17 Defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed on June 6, 2023. (Doc. 7.) Pursuant to Local Rule 18 || 230(c), any opposition was due June 20, 2023. No opposition was received. Therefore, the Court 19 | deems the motion unopposed. See L.R. 230(c) (“A failure to file a timely opposition may also be 20 | construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.”). Considering the non-opposition and 21 | for the reasons set forth in Defendant’s motion, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk 22 | of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close the case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 27, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28