Anthony Heras v. Nelnet, Inc., et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

C.D. Cal.October 12, 2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THOMAS P. QUINN, JR. (State Bar No. 132268) NOKES & QUINN 410 BROADWAY, SUITE 200 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 Tel: (949) 376-3500 Fax: (949) 376-3070 Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY HERAS, Plaintiffs v. NELNET, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION, LLC, AND EQUIFAX INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Assigned to Hon. Fernando M. Olguin NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; and [PROPOSED] ORDER FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH] Hearing Date: November 17, 2016 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom No. 22 Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:289 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on November 17, 2016, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard by the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, Courtroom 22, United States District Court for the Central District of California, 312 N. Spring St, Los Angeles, CA 90012, defendant Equifax Inc. will and hereby does move to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant seeks to dismiss each and every cause of action asserted in the complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendant further requests that the dismissal be with prejudice. This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the memorandum of points and authorities filed concurrently herewith, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and such further evidence and argument as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter. Dated: October 12, 2016 NOKES & QUINN /s/ Thomas Quinn, Esq. Thomas Quinn Attorney for Defendant Equifax Inc. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:290 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Anthony Heras v. Equifax, Inc., et al. Case No.: 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Orange, State of California, and not a party to the above-entitled cause. On October 12, 2016, I served a true copy of: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ ] By personally delivering it to the persons(s) indicated below in the manner as provided in FRCivP5(B); [X] By depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with the postage thereon fully prepaid to the following: Anthony Heras 3966 West 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 213-570-0170 PRO SE [X] By ECF: On this date, I electronically filed the following document(s) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent electronic notification of such filing to all other parties appearing on the docket sheet; I hereby certify that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. I hereby certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Thomas Quinn, Esq. Thomas Quinn Place of Mailing: Laguna Beach, California. Executed on October 12, 2016, at Laguna Beach, California. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:291 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Jonathan Charles Sandler Sherli Shamtoub Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3007 Email: jsandler@bhfs.com Email: sshamtoub@bhfs.com Attorneys for Nelnet, Inc.and Nelnet Servicing, LLC Donald E Bradley Musick Peeler and Garrett LLP 650 Town Center Drive Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Email: d.bradley@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Transunion, LLC Anthony Heras 3966 West 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 Andrew H Dubin Jones Day 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: adubin@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:292 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THOMAS P. QUINN, JR. (State Bar No. 132268) NOKES & QUINN 410 BROADWAY, SUITE 200 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 Tel: (949) 376-3500 Fax: (949) 376-3070 Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY HERAS, Plaintiffs v. NELNET, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION, LLC, AND EQUIFAX INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Assigned to Hon. Fernando M. Olguin MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EQUIFAX INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Hearing Date: November 17, 2016 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom No. 22 Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:293 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 1 III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 2 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:294 ii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................. 1 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................. 1 Statutes FCRA ......................................................................................................................... 2 FCRA section 609(a)(1)(A) ....................................................................................... 2 FCRA sections 611(5)(A) and 617 ............................................................................ 2 Other Authorities Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .................................................................. 1 Suspects Section 611(5)(A) ...................................................................................................... 2 Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:295 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant, Equifax Inc., submits this memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Anthony Heras (the “FAC”). The FAC fails to state a claim against Equifax Inc. upon which relief can be granted and merits dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff filed his FAC against Equifax Inc. and other defendants on September 12, 2016. The FAC focuses primarily on co-defendant Nelnet, Inc. The only counts that appear to assert claims against Equifax Inc. directly are Claims IV and IX. The allegations in these sections of the FAC fail to state a claim against Equifax Inc. and, therefore, Plaintiff’s FAC should be dismissed as to Equifax Inc. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires dismissal of a complaint when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts which, if true, would entitle the complainant to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss). The pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level, and a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). On a motion to dismiss, the court is not required to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Under this standard, Plaintiff’s FAC should be dismissed as to Equifax Inc. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:296 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In this case, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Equifax Inc. under the FCRA because his allegations are insufficient to raise any recognized claim against it.1 In Claim IV, Plaintiff alleges that Equifax Inc. violated section 609(a)(1)(A) of the FCRA, but that section of the Act merely requires that a consumer reporting agency provide a consumer with a copy of his or her credit file upon request. Plaintiff’s allegations in Claim IV do not allege that he asked for a copy of his file and did not receive it. Instead, he seems to allege that he asked for an explanation of the reinvestigation process. Plaintiff’s claims against Equifax Inc. in Claim IV should be dismissed. Plaintiff’s claims against Equifax Inc. under Claim IX should similarly be dismissed. In Claim IX, Plaintiff references sections 611(5)(A) and 617 of the FCRA. Section 611(5)(A) requires a consumer reporting agency to delete unverifiable information from a consumer’s credit file. That is not what Plaintiff alleges. Instead, he alleges that Equifax “reports whatever Nelnet tells them to.” This fails to state a claim under section 611(5)(A). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Equifax Inc. respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety as to Equifax Inc. Dated: October 12, 2016 NOKES & QUINN By: /s/ Thomas P. Quinn, Jr. Thomas P. Quinn, Jr. Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX INC. 1 Equifax Inc. denies that it is a consumer reporting agency. It is, in fact, the parent of Equifax Information Services LLC which is the consumer reporting agency. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:297 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Anthony Heras v. Equifax, Inc., et al. Case No.: 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Orange, State of California, and not a party to the above-entitled cause. On October 12, 2016, I served a true copy of: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EQUIFAX INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ ] By personally delivering it to the persons(s) indicated below in the manner as provided in FRCivP5(B); [X] By depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with the postage thereon fully prepaid to the following: Anthony Heras 3966 West 6th Street Los Angeles, CA 90020 213-570-0170 PRO SE [X] By ECF: On this date, I electronically filed the following document(s) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent electronic notification of such filing to all other parties appearing on the docket sheet; I hereby certify that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. I hereby certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Thomas Quinn, Esq. Thomas Quinn Place of Mailing: Laguna Beach, California. Executed on October 12, 2016, at Laguna Beach, California. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:298 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Jonathan Charles Sandler Sherli Shamtoub Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 2049 Century Park East Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3007 Email: jsandler@bhfs.com Email: sshamtoub@bhfs.com Attorneys for Nelnet, Inc.and Nelnet Servicing, LLC Donald E Bradley Musick Peeler and Garrett LLP 650 Town Center Drive Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 Email: d.bradley@mpglaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Transunion, LLC Andrew H Dubin Jones Day 555 South Flower Street 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: adubin@jonesday.com Attorneys for Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-1 Filed 10/12/16 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:299 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THOMAS P. QUINN, JR. (State Bar No. 132268) NOKES & QUINN 410 BROADWAY, SUITE 200 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 Tel: (949) 376-3500 Fax: (949) 376-3070 Email: tquinn@nokesquinn.com Attorneys for Defendant EQUIFAX INC. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY HERAS, Plaintiffs v. NELNET, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION, LLC, AND EQUIFAX INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Assigned to Hon. Fernando M. Olguin [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT EQUIFAX INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-2 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:300 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Court, having considered the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Defendant Equifax Inc. pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Equifax Inc.’s Motion is GRANTED in its entirety and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Equifax Inc. is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _______________, 2016 ___________________________________ HON. FERNANDO M. OLGUIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:16-cv-06388-FMO-PLA Document 37-2 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:301