In Thomas v. Nelson Watson & Associates, LLC, 2013 WL 781964 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Marshall found that debt collection was a permissible purpose to pull a credit report under FCRA.

15 U.S.C. § 1681b limits the circumstances under which a credit reporting agency may furnish credit reports to an enumerated set of “permissible purposes.” If those purposes are exceeded, then 15 U .S.C. § 1681n provides consumers with a private right of action against “[a]ny person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with [potential liability] equal to the sum of …. any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000.” To prove his claim alleged under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, Plaintiff must show that Defendant willfully obtained his credit report for an impermissible purpose. (15 U.S.C. § 1681b; FAC at ¶ 18.) ¶  Defendant provided evidence that Plaintiff is the account holder of a past due credit card account placed with Defendant for collection. (Kuzmitski Decl. at ¶ 7.) Defendant also provided a copy of Plaintiff’s Capital One credit card account records. (Id. at ¶ 9, Ex. A.) ¶  Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Defend-ant requested his credit report for any reason other than to attempt to collect on the debt, and requesting a credit report with the intent to collect on a debt is among the “permissible purposes” listed in the FCRA. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) expressly permits distribution of a consumer report to an entity that “intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer .” See also Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 F.3d 28, 34 (3d Cir.2011) (af-firming dismissal of claims where “[plaintiff] sought credit … which he received, and accumulated credit card debt ….which ultimately resulted in [defendant’s] accessing [plaintiff’s] credit report to collect on his delinquent accounts”); Thomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 325 F. App’x 592, 593 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming summary judgment because “[plaintiff] presented no evidence that [defendants] had requested his credit report for any reason other than to attempt to collect on the debt”).