Winston O’mally v. Pnc Bank, N.a.; Select Portfolio Servicing

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WINSTON O’MALLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PNC BANK, N.A.; SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55700
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-08644-DSF-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Winston O’Mally appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims related
to disputed information on his credit report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55700
Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed O’Mally’s FCRA claims because
O’Mally cannot bring a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) as an individual, and
he did not properly notify a consumer reporting agency of disputed information as
required for a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). See Gorman v. Wolpoff &
Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2009) (claims under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s-2(a) can be brought only by federal or state agencies, and consumer’s
dispute sent directly to a lender or other furnisher of information does not trigger
duties under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)).
We do not consider O’Mally’s arguments regarding his Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act claim because O’Mally failed to replead it in his operative complaint.
See Lacey, 693 F.3d at 928 (claims dismissed with leave to amend are waived if
not repled); see also Chubb Customs Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d
946, 973 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff’s claims were effectively abandoned when
plaintiff did not replead them after district court dismissed with leave to amend).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --