351 P.3d 226
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- Brian and Karen Handlin applied to rent at Forestview; Forestview obtained tenant screening reports from On‑Site Manager, which recommended denying their application based on a low rental score and a reported 2008 eviction lawsuit.
- Handlin notified On‑Site that the 2008 lawsuit had been resolved in their favor; Forestview faxed documentation to On‑Site, which corrected its report to say the suit was dismissed, but Forestview initially continued to deny the application.
- The Handlins requested copies of their screening reports from On‑Site; On‑Site delayed, asked for ID, and ultimately produced redacted/partial materials that omitted rental scores, tenancy recommendation, and required FCRA disclosures.
- Because of the delay and initial denial, the Handlins leased a less desirable apartment, incurred costs and inconvenience, and later learned Forestview would have accepted them with a higher deposit.
- The Handlins sued, alleging violations of the Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act (RCW chapter 19.182) and a per se Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim; the trial court dismissed under CR 12(b)(6). The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint pleaded injury to business or property under CPA | Handlins: denial of access to On‑Site's consumer information (reports, scores, recommendation, disclosures) deprived them of property/use and caused economic/non‑economic injury | On‑Site: Handlins did not allege actual monetary damages; withheld items were not "property" in Handlins' files so no injury pleaded | Court: Injury pleaded — denial of access to commercially useful information is an injury to property for CPA purposes; monetary damages not required |
| Whether causation sufficiently alleged between On‑Site's disclosure failures and Handlins' loss of tenancy | Handlins: On‑Site’s delays/omissions caused Forestview’s adverse action and forced them into worse housing and expenses | On‑Site: Complaint fails to show Forestview would have acted differently with prompt/complete disclosures, so no causal link | Court: Accepting allegations as true, causation adequately pleaded; dismissal improper under CR 12(b)(6) |
| Whether FCRA violations can be enforced via CPA and permit injunctive relief | Handlins: FCRA expressly ties violations to CPA; seek injunctive relief (produce complete reports, cease‑and‑desist, prompt disclosures) | On‑Site: FCRA does not expressly authorize injunctive relief; injunctive authority belongs to FTC | Court: FCRA violations are actionable under CPA which authorizes injunctive relief; requested injunctive remedies not dismissed as a matter of law |
| Whether dismissal standard requires Twombly/Iqbal plausibility or Washington's traditional CR 12(b)(6) test | Handlins: Washington uses liberal CR 12(b)(6) standard (Tenore/McCurry), not federal plausibility test | On‑Site: Relied on Twombly/Iqbal standard | Court: Applied Washington precedent — dismissal only if no set of facts would justify recovery; Twombly/Iqbal inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (discusses Washington CR 12(b)(6) liberal standard)
- McCurrv v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wn.2d 96 (Washington rejects Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (federal plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies Twombly plausibility framework)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (elements for Consumer Protection Act claims)
- Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27 (injury under CPA is broader than monetary "damages")
- Ambach v. French, 167 Wn.2d 167 (defines injury to property as interference with right to possess/use)
- Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745 (CR 12(b)(6) motions should be granted sparingly)