In Manukyan v. Cach, LLC, 2012 WL 6199938 (C.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Klausner granted defendant’s Motion(s) to Dismiss as well as finding that Plaintiff could state facts sufficient to obtain leave to amend. The Court noted that this action is among many similar fair-debt collection and credit-report lawsuits filed by Plaintiff’s law firm, Kaass Law, in the Central District.
On September 27, 2012, Izabell Manukyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against ten defendants: Cach, LLC, (“Cach”), Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), GE Capital Retail Bank (“GE”), Resurgent Capital Services, LP (“Resurgent”), Macy’s Corporate Services, Inc. (“Macys”), Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Midland”), Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank), Wells Fargo N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), DB Servicing Corp. (“DB”), and Mercedes–Benz Financial Services USA, LLC (“Mercedes–Benz”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges Defendants violated (1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”); (2) the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”); (3) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (4) the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”); and seeks a(5) defamation by libel claim. The Complaint seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages; declaratory relief that Defendants’ conduct violated the applicable statutes; injunctive relief; fees and costs. ¶ . . .¶ Presently before the Court are six separate Mo-tions to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), filed respectively by Defendants Citibank, Resurgent, Wells Fargo, Macys, Cach, and Mercedes–Benz FN1 (collectively, “Moving Defendants”).FN2 Because Moving Defendants’ legal grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) are similar, the Court consolidates their individual Motions to Dismiss, and collectively addresses their arguments as one Motion to Dismiss. Also, before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Judge Klausner denied leave to amend on the basis that Plaintiff would not be able to prove an essential element of the FCRA claim – inaccuracy.
Additionally, the FAC fails to adequately plead claims brought under the FCRA and CCRAA, particularly the element of inaccurate reporting. See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2002); Cal. Civ.Code § 1785.25(a); 15 U.S .C. § 1621s–2(b); Howard v. Blue Ridge Bank, 371 F.Supp.2d 1139, 1143 (N.D.Cal.2005). Plaintiff merely pleads that based on information available to her, she determined that “the accounts do not belong to her.” (Compl.¶ 29.) How-ever, she makes no allegations as to what information was inaccurately reported. This is insufficient to give Defendants fair notice as to what type of information was disputed and how it was inaccurate.