Langan v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134110
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff John Langan, a pro se disabled veteran, sued multiple defendants (USAA, USAA FSB, JPMorgan Chase entities, Experian entities, Gulf Credit Services, and Verizon) over credit-related disputes and a Verizon service contract; he seeks class certification for disabled-veteran credit consumers.
- Core allegations: Chase issued a 1099‑C after removing debt from Langan’s credit report; USAA charged and reported allegedly excessive/incorrect fees and failed to investigate disputes; Gulf attempted collection on disputed debt; Verizon charged for services contrary to an "unlimited" phone contract.
- Procedurally, Langan filed an amended complaint after removal to federal court; he proceeds in forma pauperis and is representing himself.
- Defendants moved: USAA (Rule 12(b)(6)); Chase (Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike class allegations); Verizon moved to compel arbitration. Langan did not oppose the motions.
- The court exercised federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction for certain claims but dismissed Verizon (state-law claims) for lack of a common nucleus of operative fact and denied Verizon’s arbitration motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplemental jurisdiction over Verizon claims | Verizon breached a phone contract by charging for services not covered by "unlimited" plan | Claims arise from different transactions than credit-related federal claims and so are not part of the same case or controversy | Verizon claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; arbitration motion moot |
| TILA §1665d (excessive fees) vs §1637 (billing disclosures) against USAA | USAA charged excessive fees and failed to provide required payoff-month disclosures | USAA: §1637 claim time‑barred; both claims lack factual specificity | §1665d dismissed with leave to amend for lack of factual detail; §1637 not dismissed (statute of limitations not apparent on face) |
| FCRA claims (1681i, 1681s‑2(a),(b)) against USAA & Chase | Defendants failed to investigate disputes and notify CRAs properly after disputes | Defendants: (1) not CRAs so 1681i inapplicable; (2) no private right to enforce 1681s‑2(a); (3) 1681s‑2(b) duties require notice from CRA, not consumer | 1681i, 1681s‑2(a), and 1681s‑2(b) claims dismissed with prejudice (no amendment possible) |
| State consumer reporting statutes (CCRAA) and related state claims | Defendants furnished inaccurate info to CCRAs after disputes | Defendants: not CCRAs or not shown to have furnished to CCRAs; FCRA preemption for state common‑law claims | CCRAA claims dismissed with leave to amend for pleading deficiencies; related state common‑law claims preempted by FCRA and dismissed with prejudice where applicable |
| RFDCPA / UCL / FAL and other California consumer statutes | Defendants violated debt collection and unfair/false advertising laws, entitling restitution | Defendants: claims time‑barred or lack factual specificity about communications, advertising, or loss | RFDCPA against USAA timely (denied dismissal); RFDCPA against Chase dismissed (statute of limitations) with leave to amend; UCL/FAL claims dismissed with leave to amend for lack of specificity; some UCL predicates dismissed with prejudice where underlying federal claims were dismissed with prejudice |
| Class allegations & adequacy (Rule 23) | Seeks class for disabled‑veteran credit consumers; plaintiff claims retained counsel | Chase: pro se plaintiff cannot adequately represent class; no independent counsel has appeared | Class allegations struck with leave to amend; plaintiff may reassert only with experienced counsel appearing (pro se cannot act as class counsel) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Lucas v. Dep’t of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (leave to amend ordinarily required)
- Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1989) (denial of leave to amend where plaintiff previously amended)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (FCRA duties of furnishers and distinction between CRA and furnisher duties)
- Barrer v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 566 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2009) (TILA regulates credit card disclosures at multiple points)
- Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)