In Gauci v. Citi Mortg., 2011 WL 3652589 (C.D. Cal. 2011), Judge Wright held that FCRA does not allow for injunctive relief:


TransUnion argues that Plaintiff’s third claim should be dismissed because equitable relief is not a remedy available to private parties under the FCRA. (Mot. at 4–5.) The Court agrees with TransUnion. District courts in the Ninth Circuit agree that a private party may not obtain injunctive relief under the FCRA. See Howard v. Blue Ridge Bank, 371 F.Supp.2d 1139, 1145 (N.D.Cal.2005) (“[T]he express inclusion of injunctive relief in certain provisions of the FCRA and its omissions from the provisions creating plaintiff’s cause of action [is] a sufficiently ‘clear command’ from Congress that injunctive relief is not available to plaintiff.”); Yeagley v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 05–03403 CRB, 2006 WL 193257, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2006); White v. E–Loan, Inc., 409 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1187 n. 6 (N.D.Cal.2006); Parthiban v. GMAC Morg. Corp., No. SA CV 05–768 DOC (MLGx), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38433, at *25 (C.D.Cal. Mar. 1, 2006); Fisher v. Fin. Am., LLC, No. SACV 05–0888 CJC (RNBx), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36473, at *27–28 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 23, 2006). Despite Plaintiff’s suggestion to the contrary, (Opp’n at 4), the Court finds no reason to deviate from the consensus that has been reached on this issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third claim for declaratory relief is DISMISSED with prejudice.