1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 STEVEN HEATON, Case No. 21-cv-05253-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. Re: ECF No. 13 14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The court can decide Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss without oral argument, N.D. Cal. Civ. 18 L.R. 7-1(b), and dismisses the case with leave to amend. 19 First, to the extent that the plaintiff claims a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 20 (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3), for the completeness and accuracy of information provided to 21 a credit-reporting agency, there is no private right of action. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 22 LLP,

(9th Cir. 2009). Similarly, there is no private right of action 23 under § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E) and (F). Gomez v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-04004- 24 CRB,

, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2015). 25 Second, the plaintiff did not plausibly plead a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). His 26 complaint establishes that he made no payments from January 16, 2019 to July 31, 2019, which 27 means that his account was 150 days past due on June 15, 2019, and 180 days past due on July 15, ] 2019.! He therefore did not plead an actionable inaccuracy related to Wells Fargo’s 180-days-past- 2 || due-report. Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2010). He also did 3 || not plead that Wells Fargo failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of any inaccuracy. 4 Gorman,

. 5 Third, Wells Fargo is not a debt collector, and the claim against it for a violation of the Fair 6 || Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) fails. Gieseke v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 13-cv-04772-JST, 7 ||

, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2014). This claim is dismissed with prejudice. 8 Fourth, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. 9

(e). The final payment to the credit card at issue was on July 31, 2019. He filed 10 || his complaint on July 7, 2021. Further, no grounds support equitable tolling. The plaintiff learned 11 of the alleged violation when he obtained his credit report in December 2019, again more than one 12 || year before he filed his complaint.’ 13 Fifth, the plaintiff did not oppose Wells Fargo’s motion to strike his claim for injunctive 14 |] relief 15 The court strikes the claim for injunctive relief and dismisses the complaint. The FDCPA 16 || claim is dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal is otherwise without prejudice (though the court i 17 || expects that the statute of limitations likely bars the TILA claim). The plaintiff has until January 6, Z 18 || 2022 to file an amended complaint. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: December 2, 2021 LAE 21 LAUREL BEELER 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24

Compl. — ECF No. | at 3 (4 9); Transunion Rep., Ex. A to

ECF No. 1-1 at 22. Citations refer to 26 the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 27 2 Compl. — ECF No. | at 3 ( 8-9). 28 || > Opp’n— ECF No. 17.