FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 10 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA KIELTY, on behalf of herself No. 15-56737
and all others similarly situated and
SUSAN PATHMAN, on behalf of herself D.C. No.
and all others similarly situated, 3:14-cv-00541-BAS-BGS
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE, CHRISTEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Patricia Kielty and Susan Pathman appeal from the district court’s judgment
dismissing their putative class action claims asserted under the Credit Repair
Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679–79j.1 We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Reviewing de novo, see Stout v. FreeScore, LLC, 743 F.3d 680, 684 (9th
Cir. 2014), the district court did not err when it concluded plaintiffs failed to
plausibly allege that Midland is a credit repair organization. There is no allegation
in the complaint that Midland represented “that it can or will sell, provide, or
perform a service for the purpose of providing advice or assistance to a consumer
with regard to improving a consumer’s credit record, credit history, or credit
rating” in return for the payment of money or other valuable consideration. See
Stout, 743 F.3d at 685. Dismissal of the CROA claims was appropriate because
the “overall net impression communicated” by Midland was merely that it sought
repayment of a debt. See id. at 686.
AFFIRMED.
1
The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not repeat them here.
Also, the plaintiffs raised additional claims in the district court but appealed only
the dismissal of their CROA claims.
2