Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lovelace v. Equifax Information Services LLC

United States District Court, D. Arizona

June 6, 2019

Amicia Lovelace, Plaintiff,
v.
Equifax Information Services LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DOMINIC W. LANZA UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         This lawsuit concerns alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). Pending before the Court is Defendant TransUnion LLC's (“TransUnion”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Amicia Lovelace's (“Lovelace”) first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 26.) For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         The relevant facts alleged in the FAC (Doc. 19), which the Court assumes to be true for purposes of the pending motion, are as follows:

         On or about June 22, 2018, Lovelace obtained her TransUnion credit disclosure. (Id. ¶ 15.) At that time, she noticed an “erroneously scheduled monthly payment” on the Byrider Finance, LLC, d/b/a CNAC Merrillville (“CNAC”), trade line. (Id.)

         The account reflected by the CNAC trade line is charged off and closed. (Id. ¶ 9.) CNAC had accelerated the payment schedule and closed the account. (Id.)

         On or about August 13, 2018, Lovelace submitted a letter to TransUnion disputing the CNAC trade line. (Id. ¶ 17.) In that letter, Lovelace explained that the account reflected by the CNAC trade line was charged off and she no longer had an obligation to make monthly payments. (Id. ¶ 18.) She also asked TransUnion to report the monthly payment as $0. (Id.)

         TransUnion forwarded Lovelace's dispute to CNAC. (Id. ¶ 20.)

         Lovelace has not received TransUnion's investigation results. (Id. ¶ 21.)

         On October 5, 2018, Lovelace obtained her TransUnion credit disclosure, which still did not show a “scheduled monthly payment of $0.” (Id.)

         Lovelace “has suffered credit and emotional damages” and “has also experienced undue stress and anxiety due to Defendants' failure to correct the errors in her credit file or improve her financial situation by obtaining new or more favorable credit terms.” (Id. ¶ 23.)

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         I. Rule 12(b)(6)

         “[T]o survive a motion to dismiss, a party must allege ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” In re Fitness Holdings Int'l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “[A]ll well-pleaded allegations of material fact in the complaint are accepted as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id. at 1144-45 (citation omitted). However, the court need not accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679-80. Moreover, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 679. The court also may dismiss due to “a lack of a cognizable legal theory.” Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).

         II. Evidence Outside The Pleadings

         Ordinarily, if a district court considers evidence outside the pleadings when ruling on a motion to dismiss, it must convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment and give the nonmovant an opportunity to respond. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). A district court may, however, consider “[c]ertain written instruments attached to pleadings” in ruling on a motion to dismiss. Id. at 908. Additionally, “[e]ven if a document is not attached to a complaint, it may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff's claim.” Id. The plaintiff need “not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint” for the court to consider it, as long as the “plaintiff's claim depends on the contents of [the] document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document.” Kn ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.