Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
IZE v Experian - DOC 35 - Order on MTD

IZE v Experian - DOC 35 - Order on MTD

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Kenneth G. Eade

More info:

Published by: Kenneth G. Eade on Nov 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES -- GENERALCase No.
EDCV 12-01547 VAP (OPx)
Date: November 6, 2012Title:IZAK ENGELBRECHT
-v- 
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.,et al.===============================================================PRESENT:HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGEMarva DillardNone PresentCourtroom DeputyCourt ReporterATTORNEYS PRESENT FORPLAINTIFFS:ATTORNEYS PRESENT FORDEFENDANTS:NoneNonePROCEEDINGS:MINUTE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TODISMISS (DOC. NO. 12) (IN CHAMBERS)This case arises out of Defendants Experian Information Services, Inc., TransUnion LLC, and Equifax Information Services, LLC's alleged failure to removeerroneous items from Plaintiff Izak Engelbrecht's credit report. Plaintiff seeksmonetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim forinjunctive and declaratory relief on the grounds that such relief is unavailable toprivate plaintiffs (Doc. No. 12).On November 5, 2012, the Court granted the parties' joint stipulation to submiton their Motion papers (Doc. No. 32). The Court, having received and considered allMINUTES FORM 11Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md__CIVIL -- GENPage 1
Case 5:12-cv-01547-VAP-OP Document 35 Filed 11/06/12 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:700
 
EDCV 12-01547 VAP (OPx)IZAK ENGELBRECHT v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., et al.MINUTE ORDER of November 6, 2012
papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, Defendants' Motion, finds that theMotion is appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78;Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants Experian Information Services,Inc., Trans Union LLC, and Equifax Information Services, LLC on September 11,2012 (Doc. No. 1), alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act("FCRA" or "the Act") by failing and refusing to remove certain "trade lines" fromPlaintiff's consumer credit reports, despite direction from Plaintiff and Plaintiff'screditors to do so. The Complaint requests monetary damages as well asdeclaratory and injunctive relief.On October 5, 2012, Defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claimfor declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that equitable relief is unavailable toprivate plaintiffs under the FCRA (Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff filed an Opposition onOctober 10, 2012 (Doc. No. 15), and Defendants filed a joint Reply on October 22,2012 (Doc. No. 19). In support of their Reply, Defendants filed the Declaration ofSarah G. Conway (Doc. No. 20), attaching a true and correct copy of a February 23,2012 Order in Engelbrecht v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. CV 11-6809DSF (DTBx).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to bring a motion todismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6) isread in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires only a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2);Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (holding that the Federal Rules requirethat a plaintiff provide "'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give thedefendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which itrests." (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2))); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept allmaterial allegations in the complaint — as well as any reasonable inferences to bedrawn from them — as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2005); ARCMINUTES FORM 11Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md__CIVIL -- GENPage 2
Case 5:12-cv-01547-VAP-OP Document 35 Filed 11/06/12 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:701
 
EDCV 12-01547 VAP (OPx)IZAK ENGELBRECHT v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., et al.MINUTE ORDER of November 6, 2012
Ecology v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 411 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2005); Moyo v.Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1994)."While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does notneed detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaicrecitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at555 (citations omitted). Rather, the allegations in the complaint "must be enough toraise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id.To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state aclaim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Ashcroft v.Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "The plausibility standard is notakin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that adefendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merelyconsistent with' a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibilityand plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly,550 U.S. at 556). Recently, the Ninth Circuit clarified that (1) a complaint must"contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable theopposing party to defend itself effectively," and (2) "the factual allegations that aretaken as true must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfairto require the opposing the party to be subjected to the expense of discovery andcontinued litigation." Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).Although the scope of review is limited to the contents of the complaint, theCourt may also consider exhibits submitted with the complaint, Hal Roach Studios,Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990), and "take judicial notice of matters of public record outside the pleadings," Mir v. Little Co. ofMary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988).MINUTES FORM 11Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md__CIVIL -- GENPage 3
Case 5:12-cv-01547-VAP-OP Document 35 Filed 11/06/12 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:702

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->