United States Ninth Circuit

In a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, libel and violations of Cal. Civ. Code section 1785.25(a), the district court's order is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) summary judgment for defendant on some FCRA claims was appropriate since the defendant's investigation into plaintiff's disputes was reasonable; 2) summary judgment for defendant on other FCRA claims was inappropriate since the statute allowed plaintiff to bring his claim regarding defendant's failure to report disputed charges and plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on this claim; 3) plaintiff did not introduce sufficient evidence to support his libel claim; 4) dismissal of plaintiff's claims under Cal. Civ. Code section 1785.25(a) was inappropriate since a private right of action to enforce Cal. Civ. Code section 1785.25(a) is not preempted by the FCRA; and 5) plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to establish causation and damages.

Appellate Information

• Argued 07/17/2008
• Decided 01/12/2009
• Published 01/12/2009

Judges

• BERZON, Circuit Judge:, Before:  RICHARD A. PAEZ and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges, and HAROLD BAER, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John C. Gorman and Charles J. Stiegler, San Jose, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Tomio B. Narita and Jeffrey A. Topor, San Francisco, CA, for the defendants-appellees.