Steinmetz v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., 011012 FED9, 10-55446

Docket Nº:10-55446
Party Name:S. DAVID STEINMETZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 10, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

S. DAVID STEINMETZ, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-55446

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 10, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted December 19, 2011[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01635-JM-AJB.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

S. David Steinmetz appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts ("FDCPA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for ExxonMobil Oil Corporation on the FCRA claim because, contrary to Steinmetz's contention otherwise, whether a defendant is a "furnisher of credit information" is not a moot point. Only "furnishers" can be held liable under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), see Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2009), and Steinmetz failed to dispute ExxonMobil's evidence that it was not a furnisher of credit information.

The district court properly dismissed Steinmetz's FCRA claims as to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and GE Money Bank, F.S.B. because Steinmetz failed sufficiently to allege in his third amended complaint that Citibank and GE were furnishers who had received notice of the dispute from a credit reporting agency. See id. at 1154 (furnisher's duties under the FCRA "arise only after the furnisher receives notice of dispute from a [credit reporting agency]; notice of a dispute received directly from the consumer does not trigger furnishers' duties under subsection (b)").

The...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP