Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 February 2002
• Docket Number: No. B146918.,B146918.
• Citation: 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 313,97 Cal.App.4th 227
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Faye A. SCHOENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U.D. REGISTRY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

118 Cal.Rptr.2d 313

97 Cal.App.4th 227

Faye A. SCHOENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U.D. REGISTRY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. B146918.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1.

February 27, 2002.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 28, 2002.

Review Denied June 12, 2002.

Faye A. Schoendorf, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Enenstein, Russell & Saltz, Michael J. Saltz, Jason M. Russell and Darren S. Enenstein for Defendant and Respondent U.D. Registry, Inc.

Harvey A. Saltz, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

MALLANO, J.

Defendant U.D. Registry, Inc. (UDR), is a consumer reporting agency that gathers information about unlawful detainer cases and sells it to landlords and other subscribers. Plaintiff Faye Schoendorf, a tenant, filed this action against UDR, alleging that it was providing misleading and incomplete information about her.

UDR moved to strike the complaint under section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits "strategic law-suits against public participation," better known by the acronym SLAPP. The trial court concluded that this action was a meritless attempt to chill UDR's constitutional rights and granted the motion.

On appeal UDR contends that it was not required to make any changes in plaintiffs report because the information she provided was not a matter of public record. We conclude that plaintiff made a sufficient showing that UDR should have modified her report even if the additional information was not contained in court files or similar sources. Accordingly, we reverse.

I BACKGROUND

UDR provides a service to landlords known as "tenant screening." UDR typically provides its subscribers with consumer reports consisting of a standard credit report from one or more of the three major credit bureaus (Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax) and public record information that is gathered by its own employees from a review of court records regarding evictions, property damage cases, rent cases, foreclosures, and bankruptcies. UDR also obtains information directly from its subscribers concerning "good" tenants and "problem" tenants, and that information, too, is included in a tenant's report.

UDR has developed a standard form on which it reports unlawful detainers. The form includes the names of the parties, the date on which the unlawful detainer was filed, the court where it was filed, the case number, the address of the residence involved, the disposition of the case, and a "comments" section.

UDR's report on Schoendorf, dated May 28, 1997, showed two unlawful detainers. As stated in the report, the first suit was filed on April 16, 1992 and was resolved by dismissal. The comments section was left blank.

The second unlawful detainer, according to the report, was filed on April 12, 1995, and was also dismissed. The comments section read, "profane screaming & threatening others."

As to both unlawful detainers, the report accurately reflected the information found in the civil register of actions. The report also contained information from the complaint in the second unlawful detainer. The civil register indicated that the court file in the first unlawful detainer had been destroyed in December 1992. The file in the second case was scheduled for destruction in March 1998.

Schoendorf retained counsel to deal with UDR. By letter dated July 10, 1997, her attorney asked UDR to remove both unlawful detainers from the report or, in the alternative, to add clarifying information in the comments section. The letter discussed the suits separately, as follows.

"# 1. You report a UD filed in April, 1992, bearing LA Municipal Court Case Number 211787. Your report [indicates] that the case was `dismissed.' Your report contains no entries in the `comment' section. The problem with your report is that it simply does not illustrate the entire situation between Ms. Schoendorf and her former landlord.

"I am enclosing for your review some information concerning a dispute between Ms. Schoendorf and Total Real Estate Management the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action]. Note that the story begins when Ms. Schoendorf reported a cockroach infestation and other maintenance and health problems in her rented unit to the Los Angeles Department of Health Services (report enclosed).

"After the problem was not resolved, Ms. Schoendorf filed her OWN affirmative lawsuit against Southern Pacific Land Group and Total Real Estate Management, among others (complaint enclosed).

"It was AFTER the filing of this lawsuit that the landlord filed its retaliatory UD. THIS IS THE UD THAT YOU HAVE REPORTED....

"After the issues were joined in the action [filed by Ms. Schoendorf], the parties settled their differences by way of a written settlement agreement. Once again, you have failed to mention this. Moreover, the settlement was in Ms. Schoendorf's favor and resulted in a $5,000 payment to her by Southwestern and JR & K, the `landlords' (document enclosed).

"Thereafter, the case was ... dismissed ... (document enclosed). To satisfy inquiring minds, I have even enclosed a copy of the $5,000 check to Ms. Schoendorf.

"Under the circumstances, it appears irresponsible for your agency to report the incident as a `UD.' However, if reporting the UD is something you think is fair and equitable, then it would also be fair and equitable (and certainly appropriate) to address the foregoing in your `comments' section.

"Demand is therefore made that you either eliminate the above-referenced `UD' from your report or, at the least, include a fair and accurate statement of events in your `comment section.'... [¶]

"# 2. You report a UD filed in April, 1995, bearing LA Municipal Court Case Number 501138. The plaintiff in that case was Scott Properties.

"As a preliminary observation, you will note that the UD was NOT for the `nonpayment' of rent, but was apparently filed because Ms. Schoendorf was accused of `profane screaming & threatening others.'...

"In order to be fair to all concerned, I[am] enclosing a letter from ... the manager of the subject property, wherein she states that the `problem' was apparently the working of a another tenant who did not get along with Ms. Schoendorf. As the letter explains, with the exception of this one disgruntled neighbor, there were no other complaints about Ms. Schoendorf.

"In addition, I am sending you a declaration from another tenant ... who states without exception that Ms. Schoendorf was a quiet tenant who respected the rights of others.

"Also included are comments from [two other individuals], each of which supports Ms. Schoendorfs reputation as a quiet, polite and proper tenant.

"I don't know why Scott Properties decided to prosecute a UD against Ms. Schoendorf. I do know, however, that Ms. Schoendorf and Scott settled their differences and Ms. Schoendorf paid ALL of the agreed rent as a condition of the settlement (document enclosed). In fact, Ms. Schoendorf received a REFUND of her security deposit (document enclosed).

"On account of the foregoing, demand is therefore made that you eliminate this UD from your reporting, or, if you chose not to do so, that you report accurately and fairly the true situation in your `comment section.'"

Schoendorfs attorney subsequently learned that UDR did not receive his letter. He sent another letter on September 18, 1997, saying: "I heard from Ms. Schoendorf that you have not received a letter which I addressed to your attention on July 10, 1997.... [¶] ... I am sending you a copy of the letter of July 10, 1997 with all enclosures. I am sending the letter by Certified Mail so that there will be no confusion as to the delivery of the correspondence."

On May 18, 1999, UDR sent Schoendorf a letter, indicating that it had not found any errors in its report. UDR also sent some written materials and forms concerning her rights under California law.

Schoendorf retained new counsel. On August 19, 1999, he wrote to UDR, demanding that the unlawful detainers be removed from Schoendorfs report. By letter dated August 24, 1999, UDR's president, Harvey A. Saltz, responded, saying: "We have reviewed the file of Faye Schoendorf and find it to be correct. For that reason, we cannot comply with your request to delete records from her file. [H] We add at this juncture that Ms. Schoendorf has been informed of her rights as a consumer vis-à-vis her records with us and has not taken appropriate steps to ameliorate her file...." As Saltz later stated in a declaration, his August 24, 1999 letter "explained that UDR had verified that its records accurately reflected the information contained within the Court's files and would thus not be complying with Plaintiffs attorney's demands."

On February 8, 2000, Schoendorf filed this action against UDR and Saltz (collectively UDR), alleging causes of action for negligence and "cancellation of instrument" (the "instrument" being the UDR report). Schoendorf alleged that the two unlawful detainers were baseless and that UDR had improperly reported them, causing damage to her reputation, credit history, and ability to find rental housing.

Schoendorf also alleged that the first unlawful detainer was filed to retaliate against her for having contacted the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services about substandard conditions at her residence. Attached to the complaint was a report from the department, dated February 21, 1992, citing the landlord for several health code violations, including infestation with cockroaches (living, dead, and egg deposits), lack of a smoke alarm, the need to regrout the sink and faucet in the bathroom, failure to clean the trash room, and the need to "rodent proof the trash room door. Two months after the department's inspection, the landlord filed the unlawful detainer.

On May 25, 2000, UDR filed an anti-SLAPP motion in the present case, seeking to strike the complaint. UDR stated that the information in Schoendorfs...