Dukes v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELONIECE M. DUKES, individually, No. 25-889 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. 2:24-cv-02855-SMB Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Meloniece M. Dukes appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred her Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. basis of the applicable statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dukes’s action as time-barred because Dukes filed her complaint more than two years after her discovery of the violation.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (FCRA action must be filed two years after plaintiff discovers the violation, or five years after the violation occurs, whichever is earlier).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).

The motion (Docket Entry No. 23) by Thomas N. Abbott to withdraw as counsel is granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-889