Loanna Hernandez v. Experian Information Solutions
21-55588
9th Cir.May 3, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Loanna Hernandez appealed the dismissal of her claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
- Hernandez alleges Experian reported an account that was discharged in her bankruptcy, initially removed it, then reinserted the tradeline seven years after her bankruptcy filing.
- Experian pointed to a prior settlement order in White v. Experian as establishing procedures that allegedly comply with the FCRA; the district court relied on that posture in dismissing Hernandez’s claim.
- The Ninth Circuit held Hernandez was not collaterally estopped by the White settlement order because she was not a party or class member and none of the Taylor v. Sturgell exceptions apply.
- The court concluded Hernandez plausibly alleged Experian prepared an inaccurate report and that reasonableness of Experian’s procedures is a fact-intensive issue requiring discovery.
- The Ninth Circuit distinguished Moran v. Screening Pros, finding Moran’s objective-reasonableness holding (about a statutory interpretation) did not foreclose Hernandez’s § 1681e(b) claim at the pleading stage; the court reversed and remanded and denied Hernandez’s requests for judicial notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel from White settlement order | White cannot bind Hernandez because she was not a party or class member | White precludes relitigation and establishes Experian’s procedures conclusively comply with FCRA | Not estopped: Hernandez was not a party or class member; Taylor exceptions do not apply |
| Sufficiency of §1681e(b) claim (inaccuracy/reasonableness) | Alleged Experian knew of discharge, reported a discharged account, removed then reinserted the tradeline — plausibly inaccurate reporting | Reinsertion of obsolete tradeline is foreclosed by FCRA text (Experian says) | Claim states a plausible §1681e(b) violation; accuracy and reasonableness are fact questions requiring discovery |
| Applicability of Moran (objective reasonableness) | Experian’s compliance must be tested factually; Moran concerned statutory interpretation and a different factual posture | Moran shows an agency’s view may be objectively reasonable as a matter of law | Moran does not resolve this case at pleading stage; objective reasonableness cannot be decided yet |
Key Cases Cited
- Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Stein, 906 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2018) (collateral-estoppel availability reviewed de novo)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (limits on nonparty issue preclusion and enumerated exceptions)
- Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (reasonableness of procedures and agency compliance are typically jury questions under §1681e(b))
- Moran v. Screening Pros, LLC, 25 F.4th 722 (9th Cir. 2022) (distinguishing objective-reasonableness review of statutory interpretation from fact-intensive reasonableness under §1681e(b))