District Court (Cal.) Finds Non-Preempted Part of CCRAA Does Not Apply to Furnishers

In Samuel v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2013 WL 1501491 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge James found no private right of action against furnishers under the CCRAA.

Generally, the CCRA allows private plaintiffs to bring an action for damages suffered as a result of violations of the Act. Cal. Civ.Code § 1785.31. However, section 1785.31 only extends to private plaintiffs bringing CCRA claims against credit re-porting agencies and users of information. Pulver v. Avco Fin. Serv., 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 633, 227 Cal.Rptr. 491 (1986). Private plaintiffs cannot bring CCRA claims against a furnisher of credit information.   Miller v. Bank of Am., Nat. Ass’n, 858 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125 (S.D.Cal.2012); Davis v. Md. Bank, 2002 WL 32713429, at *13 (N.D.Cal. June 19, 2002) (citing Pulver, 182 Cal.App.3d at 633, 227 Cal.Rptr. 491). Here, Plaintiffs allege Defendant is a furnisher of information; Plaintiffs makes no allegations that Defendant is a user of information or a credit reporting agency. Thus, section 1785.31 does not authorize Plaintiffs to bring a CCRA claim against Defendant. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs attempts to bring a CCRA claim against Defendant in its capacity as a furnisher of credit information, they cannot do so and the claim is DISMISSED.

Ed.  Other courts have disagreed with this proposition.  See Vartanian v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2013 WL 877863 (C.D.Cal. 2013) (“While the court’s decision in Pulver has not been overruled, several later decisions have allowed private actions to proceed against furnishers under that section. See, e.g., Sanai v. Saltz, 170 Cal.App.4th 746, 770, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 673 (2009); Hussey–Head v. World Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 111 Cal.App.4th 773, 779–80, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 (2003). Giving Vartanian the benefit of this murky state of the law, the Court finds that he can bring a claim against Portfolio under section 1785 .25(a).”).