Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151902 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (Corley, Mag.)

Facts.  A consumer report Trans Union provided to an auto dealer when Plaintiff applied for a loan included an OFAC alert. Trans Union included the OFAC alert because two names similar to Plaintiff's were in the OFAC database. Plaintiff was not included on the OFAC list. Plaintiff complained to Trans Union, and was told that his file did not include an OFAC alert and that he could not dispute information that did not appear in his file. Plaintiff requested his disclosure from Trans Union, which did not include any OFAC information. Trans Union also sent Plaintiff a letter advising Plaintiff of the names, locations and birth dates of the individuals on the OFAC list considered potential matches to Plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed Trans Union failed to provide him all information in his file, failed to provide a disclosure containing all information, failed to provide a summary of consumer rights, and failed to follow reasonable procedures. Plaintiff sued under the FCRA and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA").

  • CCRAA: Trans Union argued that the plain language of the CCRAA prevented Plaintiff from pursuing both FCRA and CCRAA claims. The CCRAA provides that "[a]ny consumer reporting agency or user of information against whom an action brought pursuant to § 1681n or § 1681o of [the FCRA] is pending shall not be subject to suit for the same act or omission under § 1785.31 [of the CCRAA]." The court determined that this contemplates a situation when there is a prior action pending under federal law and someone brings a later action under state law, and does not bar simultaneously filed claims.
  • Preemption. Trans Union argued that the federal anti-terror laws impliedly preempted the CCRAA under field preemption. Trans Union argued that field preemption applied because the federal government enacted a program to ensure that individuals that pose a threat to the United States do not receive loans or engage in other financial transactions with American businesses, and that financial institutions must consult lists provided by the government of those that potentially pose a threat. The court determined that while the enacted program may evidence an intent by Congress to occupy the field of regulating to whom businesses may not extend credit based on terrorism concerns, it did not evidence an intent to preempt the information CRAs provide to businesses to facilitate the businesses' compliance with federal law, such as providing reports that include OFAC alerts, what CRAs should report if they choose to report such information or how to report such information.
  • Injunctive Relief.   Trans Union argued that the CCRAA's injunctive relief remedy was preempted by the FCRA. The court rejected the argument that the CCRAA's injunctive relief remedy was inconsistent with the FCRA, finding that an additional remedy provision in the CCRAA is not inconsistent with the FCRA. The court reasoned that § 1681t(a) of the FCRA preempts state law only when compliance with inconsistent state law would result in violation of the FCRA.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.