Van Zandt v. Stanaland, 052213 FED9, 12-15479

Docket Nº:12-15479
Party Name:ROBERT VAN ZANDT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RUSSELL STANALAND, Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 22, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ROBERT VAN ZANDT, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RUSSELL STANALAND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-15479

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

May 22, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted May 14, 2013 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. 3:11-cv-04098-SI, Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Robert Van Zandt appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendant Russell Stanaland, an attorney, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by recording an abstract of a state court judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Van Zandt's FDCPA claim because Van Zandt failed to allege facts showing that the abstract of judgment was a "debt" under the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5) (defining "debt" as "any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes"); see also Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1226-28 (9th Cir. 2004) (a tort judgment was not a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA, and the FDCPA did not apply, because the judgment did not arise from a consumer transaction).

The district court properly dismissed Van Zandt's FCRA claim because Van Zandt failed to allege facts showing that Stanaland furnished inaccurate information to a credit reporting agency. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) (prohibiting a person from knowingly furnishing inaccurate information relating to a consumer to a credit reporting agency).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to amend because the deficiencies in Van Zandt's complaint could not be cured by...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP