United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE JOHN J.TUCHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
issue is Defendant Trans Union LLC's (“Trans
Union”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22, Mot.), to which
Plaintiff Tanya Hamm filed a Response (Doc. 27, Resp.), and
Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 28, Reply). No party requested
oral argument, and the Court finds the Motion appropriate for
resolution without such argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f).
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Defendant's
some period of time, Plaintiff and her mother jointly held an
account with Synchrony Bank (“Synchrony”), which
required the payment of monthly fees. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Despite
Plaintiff's mother's Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in February
2017, Plaintiff attempted to keep the account open by paying
the next month's fee in a timely fashion. (Compl. ¶
9.) However, Synchrony refused to accept payment, informing
Plaintiff that the bank closed the account. (Compl. ¶
10.) On August 5, 2017, Plaintiff performed a routine check
of her credit report with two credit reporting agencies
(“CRA”), including Defendant. At that time,
Plaintiff discovered-to her shock-that Defendant incorrectly
listed the status on her Synchrony trade line as
“charged off, ” rather than the correct status of
“closed.” (Compl. ¶ 11.)
Plaintiff mailed a letter to Defendant disputing the status
on her credit report and requesting that Defendant correct
the mistake. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 13.) Plaintiff included
both a copy of her mother's bankruptcy petition and an
explanation of the pertinent circumstances. (Compl. ¶
13.) Defendant failed to respond to this letter and did not
update the incorrect status on Plaintiff's credit report.
(Compl. ¶¶ 16.)
October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit against Trans Union
for its purported violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently
and willfully failed to assure the maximum accuracy of the
information it reported and to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation. (Compl. ¶¶ 44-56.) Defendant now
moves for dismissal on two bases. First, Defendant contends
that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to establish
Article III standing-and thus, this Court's subject
matter jurisdiction. (Mot. at 12-13.) Second, Defendant
argues that Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim upon
which relief may be granted for either a negligent or willful
violation of the FCRA. (Mot. at 4-11.)
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(1) may attack either the allegations of the
complaint as insufficient to confer upon the court subject
matter jurisdiction, or the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction in fact.” Renteria v. United
States, 452 F.Supp.2d 910, 919 (D. Ariz. 2006) (citing
Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs.
Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Where
the jurisdictional issue is separable from the merits of the
case, the [court] may consider the evidence presented with
respect to the jurisdictional issue and rule on that issue,
resolving factual disputes if necessary.”
Thornhill, 594 F.2d at 733; see also Autery v.
United States, 424 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir.
2005) (“With a 12(b)(1) motion, a court may weigh the
evidence to determine whether it has jurisdiction.”).
The burden of proof is on the party asserting jurisdiction to
show that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. See
Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090,
1092 (9th Cir. 1990).
analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim for relief
under Rule 12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are
taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d
1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff must allege
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Legal conclusions
couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the
assumption of truth, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 680 (2009), and therefore are insufficient to defeat a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In re
Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).
ruling upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, a
court may consider only the complaint, any exhibits properly
included in the complaint, and matters that may be judicially
noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See Mir
v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.
1988); Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of U.S.,
Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1042 (C.D. Cal. 1998). The
court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to
reasonable dispute” because they are either: “(1)
generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready
determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201; see
also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th
Cir. 2001) (noting that the court may take judicial notice of
undisputed “matters of public record”). The court
may disregard allegations in a complaint that are
contradicted by matters properly subject to judicial notice.
Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d
992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).
Court first addresses the jurisdictional basis of
Defendant's Motion before moving to its arguments under
Article III Standing
bring a justiciable lawsuit into federal court, Article III
of the Constitution requires that a plaintiff have “the
core component of standing.” Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To satisfy Article
III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show that
she suffered a “concrete and particularized”
injury that is “fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant, ” and that a favorable
decision would likely redress the injury. Friends of the
Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528
U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). In the complaint, the plaintiff must
“alleg[e] specific facts sufficient” to establish
standing. Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth
Circuit, 279 F.3d ...