In Simonyan v. Ally Financial Inc., 2013 WL 45453 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Walter required a Plaintiff — one of a number of Plaintiffs who’ve sued multiple creditors in the Central District on bald factual FCRA allegations — must plead more.

In Iqbal, the Supreme Court held that “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ “ 550 U.S. at 555; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547 (holding that a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”). In the Complaint, the factual allegations related to all four of Plaintiff’s claims are based on “information and belief” and contain noth-ing more than a rote recitation of the required elements of each respective claim. For example, with respect to his FCRA and CCRAA claims, Plaintiff fails to allege what information was inaccurately reported by Ally to the credit reporting agencies and why that information was inaccurate. Such allegations fall well short of the requirements set forth in Iqbal . Accordingly, Ally’s Motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for violation of the FCRA, the CCRAA, the FDCPA, and the RFDCPA.