In Noel v. Bank of America,  2012 WL 5464608 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Conti dismissed a consumer’s FDCPA and FCRA claims against a Bank.  The facts were as follows:

Plaintiff alleges that she paid off any debt she may once have owed to BOA. Compl. ¶ 13. She alleges that, in 2009, she sought assistance from counsel to address BOA’s allegedly “aggressive and harassing collection efforts.” Id. ¶ 14. On April 29, 2009, through counsel, she sent to BOA via facsimile a letter which “disputed the debt purportedly owed, sought an accounting, and demanded that collections efforts cease and desist.” Id. ¶¶ 20–21; id. Ex. A (“April 29 Letter”). Plaintiff alleges that, following the April 29 Letter, BOA “actually increased its collection efforts, using not only multiple telephone calls but also text messages.” Id. ¶ 22. This prompted Plaintiff’s counsel to fax another letter to BOA on May 18, 2009. Id. ¶¶ 23–24; id. Ex. B (“May 18 Letter”). Over the next few months, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted various entities—apparently, debt collectors—and collection efforts ceased. Id. ¶¶ 25–29. ¶  Plaintiff alleges that, “[d]uring the summer of 2011, Plaintiff attempted to purchase a home and learned that she would be forced to continue renting due to credit reporting by Defendants [sic].” Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff alleges that she “contested the reports with all three credit reporting agencies.” Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff allegedly received an investigation report from the credit reporting agency TransUnion, dated August 30, 2011, which shows that BOA “reported the debt as verified with no change.” Id. ¶ 31; id. Ex. E (“Report”). Plaintiff alleges that her counsel received another debt collection attempt from a non-BOA entity in the spring of 2012, but that this entity “ceased collections shortly thereafter.” Id. ¶¶ 33–34. Plaintiff further alleges that BOA “continued to fail to correct its reporting of the invalidated debt” and represented to her that BOA “would do nothing but attempt to report the alleged debt as ‘sold.’ ” Id. ¶ 35.

Judge Conti ruled that the FDCPA did not apply since the Bank was collecting its own debts.  Judge Conti dismissed the FCRA claim because the Plaintiff had failed to identify any inaccuracy in her credit report.

 The FCRA does, however, confer a private right of action upon consumers and allow them to sue a furnisher of credit information if such furnisher breaches any of the duties enumerated in § 1681s2(b). See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir.2009). However, “[t]hese duties arise only after the furnisher receives notice of dispute from a [credit reporting agency] ….” Id. Here, Plaintiff alleges that she contested credit information furnished to the three credit reporting agencies by BOA. However, she does not allege that BOA (let alone FIA, who is not named in the complaint) ever received notice of the dispute. Moreover, to state a claim for furnishing inaccurate information, Plaintiff must identify which information is inaccurate. See Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 588 F.Supp.2d 1089, 1096 (N.D.Cal.2008) aff’d, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir.2010). As FIA points out, Mot. at 7–8, Plaintiff has not done so. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under § 1681s–2(b).