United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. DAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (#39).
Plaintiff filed a response to the motion (#41) to which
Defendant replied (#46).
April 2016, Plaintiff Thomas Foskaris
(“Foskaris”) believed he was the victim of credit
fraud. After Foskaris found that accounts had been opened in
his name at Kohl's and Verizon, he contacted Defendant
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(“Experian”). Foskaris requested that Experian
place an initial fraud alert on his account and send him a
consumer disclosure report. Defendant placed the fraud alert
on the account and sent him the consumer disclosure that same
day. The initial fraud alert lasts only 90 days, so on or
about May 15, 2016 Foskaris requested an extended fraud
alert, which lasts for seven years, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.A.
§ 1681c-1(b). Experian added the extended alert that
same day. However, on or about May 16, 2016, Experian sent
him a notice saying he needed to provide additional
information before they could apply the extended fraud alert.
However, subsequent reports provided to Foskaris on or about
July 21, 2016 showed that Experian added the extended alert
to his record. Foskaris was confused by the request for
additional information and Experian's failure to disclose
the permissible purpose of each credit inquiry requested
after the fraud alert was enabled.
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a consumer reporting
agency (CRA) cannot release a consumer's credit
information to a third party without having a permissible
purpose. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681b. The report
Experian provided to Foskaris did not contain a description
of the third party's permissible purpose before receiving
the credit information. Plaintiff claims that this
constitutes a violation of Section 1681g. Plaintiff also
alleges other violations of the Act stemming from
Experian's failure to provide the permissible purpose as
well as their handling of his request for an extended fraud
the pleadings are closed- but early enough not to delay
trial- a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Motions for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) are
“functionally identical” to a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,
867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court
“must accept all factual allegations in the complaint
as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the
non- moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581
F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). “[J]udgment on the
pleadings is proper when taking all the allegations in the
non-moving party's pleadings as true, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ventress
v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2007)
First Cause of Action: Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
complaint alleges multiple violations of the FCRA throughout.
The causes of action named are limited and will be analyzed
§ 1681b Violation
1681b, entitled “Permissible purposes of consumer
reports, ” outlines when it is appropriate for a CRA to
“furnish a consumer report” to a third party. 15
U.S.C.A. 1681b(a). The statute defines “consumer
any written, oral, or other communication of any information
by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's
credit worthiness [creditworthiness], credit standing, credit
capacity, character, general reputation, personal
characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected
to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose
of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's
eligibility for credit or insurance to be used primarily for