Gabriel Moran v. the Screening Pros
923 F.3d 1208
9th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Gabriel Moran was denied housing after a tenant screening report by The Screening Pros (TSP) disclosed four criminal matters, including a May 2000 misdemeanor charge (dismissed in 2004) that served as the main disputed item.
- Moran sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
- The district court dismissed all ICRAA claims as unconstitutionally vague as applied to tenant screening reports (due to overlap with the CCRAA), dismissed UCL claims, and ultimately granted summary judgment to TSP on the remaining FCRA claims after holding the FCRA seven‑year window runs from date of disposition rather than date of entry.
- The Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Connor and, after that decision, considered supplemental briefing.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: (1) held Connor forecloses the district court’s vagueness ruling and remanded the ICRAA claims for merits review; (2) remanded UCL claims (to consider ICRAA‑based UCL theories); and (3) interpreted 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a) to start the seven‑year reporting window for criminal charges from the date of entry of the charge (not date of disposition) and held that including Moran’s 2000 charge in the report violated the FCRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ICRAA is unconstitutionally vague as applied to tenant screening reports | Moran: ICRAA applies and is enforceable against tenant screening practices | TSP: Overlap with CCRAA makes ICRAA vague as applied | Reversed district court; California Supreme Court’s Connor controls — ICRAA not unconstitutionally vague; remanded for merits review |
| Whether new preemption/anti‑duplication arguments may be considered on appeal | Moran: Not applicable; plaintiffs relied on ICRAA claims | TSP: FCRA preempts ICRAA; §1786.52 bars duplicative suits | TSP waived those arguments by failing to raise them below; not considered |
| Whether UCL remedies (injunctive/restitution) are available based on ICRAA/FCRA violations | Moran: UCL claim predicated on ICRAA violations supports relief | TSP: District court held remedies preempted or unavailable | Remanded for district court to decide UCL claims in light of ICRAA remand |
| When the FCRA seven‑year reporting window for criminal matters begins (date of entry vs. date of disposition) and whether dismissal is a separate adverse item | Moran: Window begins at date of entry; dismissals do not reopen window | TSP/Dissent: Window begins at date of disposition; dismissal is adverse and reportable if within seven years | Held: Window begins at date of entry; dismissal is not a separate adverse item that may extend reporting beyond seven years; inclusion of 2000 charge violated §1681c(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Connor v. First Student, Inc., 423 P.3d 953 (Cal. 2018) (California Supreme Court holds ICRAA and CCRAA can overlap and ICRAA is not unconstitutionally vague)
- Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (FCRA should be construed liberally to protect consumers and ensure accuracy)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (courts may give meaning to overlapping statutory schemes rather than treating overlap as fatal)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (presumption that Congress acts intentionally when it includes or omits language in different statutory provisions)