9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FCRA Claim Because Plaintiff Failed to Allege that the CRA Notified the Furnisher of the Dispute

In Saccato v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., 2012 WL 5951490 (9th Cir. 2012), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in an unpublished decision that the district court properly dismissed a FCRA claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b) because the Plaintiff failed to plead that the CRA notified the furnisher of the dispute.

The district court properly concluded that 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(a) did not create a private right of action and, thus, Saccato failed to state a claim under this section. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(a) does not create a private right of action). Saccato’s argument that the 2010 Federal Trade Commission regulations create a private cause of action is unpersuasive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(c) (excluding violations of “subsection (a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder” from the FCRA’s private enforcement provisions). ¶  The district court properly dismissed Saccato’s action to the extent that it alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s–2(b) because Saccato failed to allege that a credit reporting agency (“CRA”) had notified defendant of his dispute. See Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1154 (“[The duties under subsection (b) ] arise only after the furnisher receives notice of dispute from a CRA; notice of a dispute received directly from the consumer does not trigger furnishers’ duties under subsection (b).”).