Case Number: 13A07385    Hearing Date: July 09, 2014    Dept: 77

1. Cross-Defendants Discovery Bank and DB Servicing Corporation’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. CCP § 430.10(e).

First, the Court notes that special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. CCP § 92(c). As such, only the general ground for demurrer has been addressed by the Court. CCP § 128.

As to the First Cause of Action for Violation of the CCRA, the demurrer is sustained. Generally, the California Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRA) allows private plaintiffs to bring an action for damages suffered as a result of violations of the Act. CC § 1785.31. However, section 1785.31 only extends to private plaintiffs bringing CCRA claims against credit reporting agencies and users of information. Pulver v. Avco Fin. Serv. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 633. Private plaintiffs cannot bring CCRA claims against a furnisher of credit information. See Miller v. Bank of Am., Nat. Ass’n, (2012) 858 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1125. Here, Cross-Complainant alleges Cross-Defendants are “furnishers” of information; Cross-Complainant makes no allegations that Cross-Defendants are users of information or a credit reporting agency. As such, section 1785.31 does not authorize Cross-Complainant to bring a CCRA claim against Cross-Defendants. Accordingly, this demurrer is sustained as to both Cross-Defendants.

As to the Second Cause of Action for Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), the demurer is sustained. The Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts, and provides for recovery of actual damages for violations and penalties for willful violations. CC § 1788 et seq. Means of collecting consumer debts that are forbidden by the Act fall under the following general categories: (1) threats; (2) harassment; (3) improper disclosures; (4) false representations; (5) overreaching; (6) improper use of judicial proceedings; (7) improper communications; and (8) failure to comply with Federal Law. Here, there are insufficient allegations that there was a violation of the Act. There are insufficient allegations that Cross-Defendants are in the business of debt collection and there are insufficient allegations that Cross-Defendants acted in any way that was unfair or deceptive in any attempted collection of the alleged debt (paragraph 11 is not sufficient). The allegations stated in the Cross-Complaint are conclusory without any specific allegations as to these Cross-Defendants. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained.

In this case leave to amend is not being granted. The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348. Cross-Complainant has not filed an Opposition to this demurrer. As such, the Court has no reason to conclude that there is a basis for granting leave to amend. However, the Court nevertheless will allow Cross-Complainant to appear at the hearing and assert a reason for leave to amend, and the Court will consider granting leave if Cross-Complainant can show a reasonable possibility of successfully amending the Cross-Complaint.

Moving party to give notice.

2. Cross-Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.’s Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complainant is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. CCP § 430.10(e).

This Cross-Defendant has only demurred to the first cause of action for violation of the CCRA. Generally, the California Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRA”) allows private plaintiffs to bring an action for damages suffered as a result of violations of the Act. CC § 1785.31. However, section 1785.31 only extends to private plaintiffs bringing CCRA claims against credit reporting agencies and users of information. Pulver v. Avco Fin. Serv. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 633. Private plaintiffs cannot bring CCRA claims against a furnisher of credit information. See Miller v. Bank of Am., Nat. Ass’n, (2012) 858 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1125. Here, Cross-Complainant alleges Cross-Defendant is a furnisher of information; Cross-Complainant makes no allegations that Cross-Defendant is a user of information or a credit reporting agency. As such, section 1785.31 does not authorize Cross-Complainant to bring a CCRA claim against Cross-Defendant. Accordingly, this demurrer is sustained.

In this case leave to amend is not being granted. The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348. Cross-Complainant has not filed an Opposition to this demurrer. As such, the Court has no reason to conclude that there is a basis for granting leave to amend. However, the Court nevertheless will allow Cross-Complainant to appear at the hearing and assert a reason for leave to amend, and the Court will consider granting leave if Cross-Complainant can show a reasonable possibility of successfully amending the Cross-Complaint.

Moving party to give notice.

3. Cross-Defendant Nordstrom FSB’s Notice of Joinder to Cross-Defendants Discover Bank and DB Servicing Corporation’s Demurrer and Cross-Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.’s Demurrer is GRANTED. CCP § 128. As noted by Cross-Defendant Nordstrom FSB, the Court finds that the arguments made in the demurrers being joined equally apply to it as well and need not be separately briefed. Accordingly, the ruling made above as to the Demurrer filed by Cross-Defendants Discover Bank and DB Servicing Corporation’s Demurrer and Cross-Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A.’s Demurrer apply to this Cross-Defendant as well. Cross-Complainant has not filed an Opposition to this demurrer. As to the argument that the First Amended Cross-Complaint was untimely and should be striken, the Court denies that request.

Moving party to give notice.