Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC.

• Decision Date: 25 March 2022
• Docket Number: Case No.: 3:20-cv-1262-JM-(AGS)
• Parties: Marco A. FERNANDEZ, individually and as a representative of the class, Plaintiff, v. CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

593 F.Supp.3d 974

Marco A. FERNANDEZ, individually and as a representative of the class, Plaintiff,

v.CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC., Defendant.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-1262-JM-(AGS)

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed March 25, 2022

E. Michelle Drake, Pro Hac Vice, John Gerard Albanese, Pro Hac Vice, Berger Montague PC, Minneapolis, MN, Sophia Marie Rios, Berger Montague PC, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.

John Charles Hueston, Brandon Marsh, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Joshua D. Burk, Moez Kaba, Amber Elizabeth Munoz, Spencer M. Schmider, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Abigail Eden Smith, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS

Jeffrey T. Miller, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 35) and Motion to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 36.) The motions have been fully briefed and the court finds them suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motions are denied.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Marco A. Fernandez filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant CoreLogic Credco, LLC ("Credco") in San Diego Superior Court alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. section 1681, et seq. ; willful violations of the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"), CAL. CIV. CODE section 1785.1, et seq. , and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE section 17200, et seq. (Doc. No. 1-3 at 12-32.) On July 6, 2020, Defendant removed this action to federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. section 1331 and pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. section 1453. (Doc. No. 1.)

On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the first amended putative class action complaint. (Doc. No. 14, "FAC".) Initially, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC (Doc. No. 15), and then subsequently filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending the Supreme Court's Decision in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez , (Doc. No. 23).

On April 8, 2021, this court granted Defendant's motion and ordered all proceedings in this action stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in Ramirez . (Doc. No. 27 at 8.) In light of the stay, and to assist in managing its own calendar, the court also denied without prejudice Defendant's pending motion to dismiss first amended complaint as moot. (Id. ) In doing so, the court provided that once the stay was lifted, any relevant motions attacking the complaint brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 or 23 could be refiled. (Id. )

On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Ramirez . Subsequently, on July 6, 2021, the parties provided this court with a joint status report (Doc. No. 31), and this court issued a scheduling order (Doc. No. 32).

In accordance with the scheduling order, on August 20, 2021, Defendant refiled its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 35) along with a separate Motion to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff duly filed his responses in opposition, (Doc. Nos. 39, 40) and Defendant replied (Doc. Nos. 43, 44)¹ .

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a resident of Hanover, Maryland. (FAC ¶ 15.) He contends that in October 2019, he applied for a mortgage as part of the home-buying process. (FAC ¶¶ 3, 24.) Plaintiff alleges that in connection with his application, Pulte Mortgage, LLC requested a credit report from Defendant, and that the report Defendant supplied was inaccurate. (Id. , ¶¶ 3, 26.) Specifically, the report furnished by Defendant inaccurately stated that Plaintiff was a person on the United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons ("OFAC/SDN"). (Id. ¶¶ 4, 32.)

Further, the report supplied by Defendant included a record belonging to "Mario Alberto Fernandez Santana," a resident of Mexico, born in May 1977. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 37.) Plaintiff complains that a "rudimentary review of the record" would reveal that his name, date of birth and address differ vastly from the Mario Alberto Fernandez Santana reported on the credit report furnished by Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 38-41.) Additionally, it is alleged that the OFAC/SDN Search Results section of the report generated by Defendant, falsely reported that Plaintiff "was a match to a suspected narcotics trafficker included on the OFAC-SDN & Blocked Persons List." (Id. at ¶ 32.)

Plaintiff maintains that when he took steps to dispute the inaccurate report, including sending a letter via Certified U.S. Mail, Defendant did not respond. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 42, 43.) When Plaintiff later received his consumer file from Defendant, the "response did not include any information it reported to Pulte about Plaintiff being on the OFAC/SDN. Nor did the response indicate that any report had been provided to Pulte." (Id. at ¶ 7; see also ¶¶ 44-47.)

Plaintiff claims that by issuing the inaccurate report, Defendant violated section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and section 1785.14(b) of the CCRAA because it failed to employ reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its reports. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 50, 52, 54, 55.) Plaintiff also alleges that by failing to respond to Plaintiff's dispute, Defendant also violated the relevant provisions of the Acts. (Id. ¶¶ 9-11, 56.) As a result of this inaccurate reporting and failure to fix the report or disclose that it had reported such inaccurate information, Plaintiff alleges he suffered "distress and embarrassment, damage to his reputation, and is concerned that the inaccurate reporting could recur." (Id. at ¶ 12.)

Based on these facts Plaintiff seeks to represent seven classes consisting of:

Inaccurate Reporting Class

All individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which contained public record information in the "OFAC/SDN" section of the reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address in the government database in the seven years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Inaccurate Reporting FCRA Class

All individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which contained public record information in the "OFAC/SDN" section of the reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address in the government database in the five years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Inaccurate Reporting UCL Subclass

All individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which contained public record information in the "OFAC/SDN" section of the reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address in the government database in the four years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Failure to Disclose Class

All individuals (1) who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which contained public record information in the "OFAC/SDN" section of the reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address in the government database (2) who made a request to Defendant for their consumer file or report and (3) for whom Defendant did not disclose the OFAC/SDN information. The class period is all persons who made requests to Defendant in the five years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Failure to Identify Class

All individuals (1) who were the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant (2) who made a request to Defendant for their consumer file or report and (3) for whom Defendant did not identify the user that procured the consumer report within the one-year period on which the request was made. The class period is all persons who made requests to Defendant in the five years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Failure to Disclose UCL Subclass

All individuals (1) who were the subject of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which contained public record information in the "OFAC/SDN" section of the reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address in the government database (2) who made a request to Defendant for their consumer file or report and (3) for whom Defendant did not disclose the OFAC/SDN information. The class period is all persons who made requests to Defendant in the four years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

Failure to Identify UCL Subclass

All individuals (1) who were the subject of consumer reports furnished by Defendant (2) who made a request to Defendant for their consumer file or report and (3) for whom Defendant did not identify the user that procured the consumer report within the one-year period on which the request was made. The class period is all persons who made requests to Defendant in the five years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class list is prepared.

FAC at 11-12² .

III. JUDICIAL NOTICE

As a...