Narog v. Certegy Check Services, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2407
| N.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Narog filed pro se in small claims; defendant removed to federal court and moved to dismiss.
- Complaint alleged FDCPA violations relating to debt collection practices and inaccurate credit reporting.
- Court identified ambiguity whether FDCPA, FCRA, or other authority applied; granted leave to amend.
- FAC asserted three FDCPA claims: 809(b), 807, 808; plaintiff sought damages and removal of derogatory mark.
- Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend after evaluating FDCPA viability and debt status.
- Defendant later filed the motion to dismiss; plaintiff did not oppose; court applied Twombly/Iqbal standards and pro se liberal pleading rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA viability given paid debt | Narog asserts FDCPA claims for post-payment conduct | Certegy argues no debt, no collection, and post‑payment actions not actionable | FDCPA claims dismissed as post‑payment conduct not in collection |
| Debt/collector status under FDCPA | Certegy acted as a debt collector | Certegy not a debt collector or not engaged in collection | No viable FDCPA claim due to lack of collection activity tied to a debt |
| FCRA private right of action viability | FCRA violation by furnishers after dispute | FCRA remedies limited to disputes under 1681s-2(b) and agencies | FCRA claims not cognizable as pleaded; no private remedy |
| Relation back/timeliness of FDCPA claims | Earlier filing relates to later FDCPA claims | Statute of limitations or relation back not satisfied | Not salvageable under relation back or timeliness; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (explains private rights under FCRA limited to furnishers after CRA dispute)
- Winter v. I.C. System Inc., 543 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (post‑payment conduct not within FDCPA collection actions)
- Skwira v. United States, 344 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2003) (describes complexity of FCRA provisions)
- Burrell v. DFS Services, LLC, 753 F. Supp. 2d 438 (D.N.J. 2010) (describes esoteric FCRA provisions and pleading expectations)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (reiterates pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs)