District Court (Cal.) Finds CCRAA Provisions Not Addressed by Gorman Still Pre-empted

In Harrold v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2012 WL 4097708 (N.D.Cal. 2012), Judge Alsup found that FCRA still pre-empts other parts of the CCRAA that were not addressed by Gorman.

The FCRA provides that “[n]o requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State … relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies.” 15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)(F). One statutory exception is for California Civil Code Section 1785.25(a). 15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)(F)(ii). Subsections (b), (c), and (f) of Section 1785.25 are preempted by FCRA because they relate to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies. See Carvalho v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 889 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (“Because section 1785.25(a) is the only substantive CCRAA furnisher provision specifically saved by the FCRA, [plaintiff’s] section 1785.25(f) claim is preempted.”); see also Subhani v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass’n, Civ. 12–1857, 2012 WL 1980416 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2012) (Alsup, J.). In their opposition brief, the Harrolds ignore Wells Fargo’s preemption arguments. Therefore, claims pursuant to Section 1785.25(b), (c), and (f) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.