United States District Court, D. Arizona
DOMINIC W. LANZA UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
relevant facts alleged in the FAC (Doc. 19), which the Court
assumes to be true for purposes of the pending motion, are as
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.)
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.)
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.)
forwarded Lovelace's dispute to CNAC. (Id.
has not received TransUnion's investigation results.
(Id. ¶ 21.)
October 5, 2018, Lovelace obtained her TransUnion credit
disclosure, which still did not show a “scheduled
monthly payment of $0.” (Id.)
“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.)
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).
Evidence Outside The Pleadings
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 ...