Handlin v. On-Site Manager, Inc.
351 P.3d 226
Wash. Ct. App.2015Background
- Brian and Karen Handlin applied to rent an apartment; Forestview denied their application based on a tenant screening report purchased from On-Site Manager, Inc., which gave a low rental score and recommended denial.
- The Handlins informed On-Site that a 2008 eviction suit was resolved in their favor; Forestview received corrected information but still initially refused tenancy.
- The Handlins requested copies of their tenant screening reports from On-Site; On-Site delayed, requested ID, and eventually sent reports that omitted rental scores, recommendation, and certain FCRA disclosures.
- Because of timing, the Handlins rented a less desirable apartment, paid a deposit, and later learned Forestview would have accepted them with a higher deposit.
- The Handlins sued under the Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act (RCW chapter 19.182) and the Consumer Protection Act (RCW chapter 19.86); the trial court dismissed under CR 12(b)(6).
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the complaint sufficiently pleaded injury to business or property and that injunctive relief claims may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CR 12(b)(6) dismissal was proper | Handlins: allegations show On-Site violated FCRA, causing injury and should survive dismissal | On-Site: complaint fails to allege actual injury or that better disclosure would have changed outcome | Court: dismissal improper; accept plaintiffs' allegations under Washington's liberal CR 12(b)(6) standard |
| Whether failure to allege "actual damages" bars CP A claim | Handlins: "injury" under CPA is broader than monetary damages; unquantified harms suffice | On-Site: statute references "actual damages," so plaintiffs must plead them | Court: "actual damages" not required at pleading stage; injury under CPA may be nonmonetary |
| Whether withheld consumer report data constitutes "property"/injury to business or property | Handlins: right to access consumer-file information is property interest; withholding deprived them of commercial utility | On-Site: reports/items are not plaintiffs' property because not physically in plaintiffs' files | Court: information assembled by reporting agency has commercial utility for consumer; deprivation sufficiently pleads injury to property |
| Whether injunctive relief claims are permissible | Handlins: seek production and cease-and-desist relief under CPA and FCRA | On-Site: FCRA doesn't expressly provide injunctions; federal agency (FTC) preempts such relief | Court: CPA authorizes injunctive relief for FCRA violations pleaded under CPA; injunctive requests not dismissed and federal preemption not shown at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322 (review of CR 12(b)(6) standard)
- McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wn.2d 96 (state rejects Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (federal plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifying federal pleading standard)
- Bravo v. Dolsen Cos., 125 Wn.2d 745 (CR 12(b)(6) motions should be granted sparingly)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (elements of Consumer Protection Act claim)
- Ambach v. French, 167 Wn.2d 167 (definition of injury to property/right to use or enjoy)
- Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27 ("injury" under CPA broader than monetary damages)
- Scott v. Cingular Wireless, 160 Wn.2d 843 (CPA plaintiffs may seek injunctive relief)
- Mason v. Mortg. Am., Inc., 114 Wn.2d 842 (unquantified damages can suffice under CPA)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Updegrave, 33 Wn. App. 653 (failure to show monetary damages does not bar all recovery)