FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD JOHN HERISKO, No. 08-56801
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-00981-SGL-OP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BANK OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, ** Chief
District Judge.
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s adverse summary judgment ruling,
dismissing claims he asserted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the
District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
-2-
1681–1681x (“FCRA”), against Defendants Bank of America and Experian. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In order to trigger a credit reporting agency’s duty under the FCRA to
investigate a claim of inaccurate information, a consumer must notify the agency
of the purported reporting error. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(1)(A). Here, the only
notice Plaintiff provided to Experian about his dispute was a letter claiming that his
credit information was inaccurate because his second mortgage with Bank of
America “was not discharged” but rather “exempted from the [b]ankruptcy under
California exemptions.” This letter did not put Experian on notice that Plaintiff
was claiming a different purported inaccuracy, i.e., that his credit report failed to
reflect the fact and consequences of his second mortgage “riding through” his
bankruptcy. This is the alleged inaccuracy underlying the present suit. Plaintiff’s
dispute letter was therefore insufficient to trigger Experian’s duty under § 1681i.
The district court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Experian.
Plaintiff’s deficient notice to Experian also proves fatal to his claim against
Bank of America. A consumer may sue a furnisher of credit information, such as
Bank of America, only if such furnisher breaches a list of duties enumerated in §
1681s-2(b). See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th
Cir. 2009). However, “[t]hese duties arise only after the furnisher receives notice
-3-
of dispute from a [credit reporting agency] . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). Not only
is there no record evidence that Experian ever notified Bank of America of
Plaintiff’s dispute, but even if Experian had forwarded Plaintiff’s dispute letter to
the bank, such notice would have borne no relationship to the purported
inaccuracies underlying Plaintiff’s claims here. Accordingly, the district court
properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Bank of America.
Although the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants
because it found that the information contained in Plaintiff’s credit report was not
“inaccurate” under § 1681e(b), we may affirm the district court’s ruling on any
basis supported by the record. McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129,
1135 (9th Cir. 2009). We do so here, and therefore do not consider the accuracy
issue or any other issue raised by the parties.
AFFIRMED.