In Moses v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2016 WL 3670068, at *1 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Freeman allowed an FCRA bankruptcy-reporting case past the pleadings. The Plaintiff alleged that
he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in January 2015; his Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in May 2015; credit reports obtained in July 2015 showed that AFNI was reporting a balance and past-due balance of $1,482 on Plaintiff’s account; and those reports were inaccurate because the Bankruptcy Court ordered that $0 was owed on the account under the terms of Plaintiff’s confirmed Chapter 13 plan. FAC ¶¶ 5-8. Plaintiff further alleges that he disputed the inaccurate tradelines via certified mail to consumer reporting agencies Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax, Inc., and TransUnion, LLC, and that each of those agencies notified AFNI of the dispute.
The Court found these allegations sufficient to state a claim.
AFNI contends that Plaintiff has not alleged these elements sufficiently to make out a claim. However, as discussed above, Plaintiff alleges that he disputed the tradelines showing a balance and past-due balance of $1,482 on his AFNI account by means of certified mail to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion; those consumer reporting agencies notified AFNI of the dispute; AFNI failed to conduct a reasonable investigation; AFNI reported misleading and inaccurate information to Experian and Equifiax; and the inaccurate information remained on Plaintiff’s credit reports. See FAC ¶¶ 5-13. These allegations satisfy the pleading requirements set forth above. AFNI also asserts a separate legal argument that Plaintiff’s theory of liability against it simply is not viable. According to AFNI, it accurately reported Plaintiff’s debt prior to Plaintiff’s bankruptcy. AFNI contends that, as a matter of law, a company that furnishes a CRA with accurate information regarding a debt has no “affirmative duty to go back and update pre-petition, historically-accurate reporting after the debtor obtains discharge.” Def.’s Mot. at 4, ECF 44. In support of that argument, AFNI relies primarily upon Mortimer v. Bank of America and similar cases holding that a furnisher does not violate the FCRA when it accurately reports, post-discharge, that a debt was delinquent during the pendency of the bankruptcy action. See Mortimer v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. C-12-01959 JCS, 2013 WL 1501452 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013). Mortimer, however, the furnisher updated its reporting post-discharge to reflect that the debt in question had been discharged and had a balance of $0. Id. at *4. It was in that context that the district court held that the furnisher’s reporting that the debt had been delinquent during the pendency of the bankruptcy was historically accurate and thus not actionable under the FCRA. Id. at *9. The Mortimer court did not squarely address the question presented by AFNI’s motion, whether a furnisher that accurately reports a debt prior to the consumer’s bankruptcy has a duty to update its reporting once the debt has been discharged. While AFNI’s motion presents an interesting legal question regarding the precise scope of a furnisher’s duty to update its pre-bankruptcy reporting, consideration of that question would be premature at this time. It is not clear from the face of the FAC whether AFNI’s only reporting regarding the debt was prior to Plaintiff’s bankruptcy. Plaintiff alleges that at the time he obtained credit reports in July 2015, AFNI “was reporting” a balance and past due balance of $1,482 on Plaintiff’s account. FAC ¶ 8. . . .AFNI’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s FCRA claim likewise is DENIED. The Court simply does not have a sufficient factual record to address AFNI’s argument that it cannot be liable under the FCRA as a matter of law because it provided only pre-discharge, historically accurate reporting. AFNI may reassert its legal argument in an appropriate future motion once the record has been more fully developed.