United States v. 2020-12-10 | 20-15316 | LA TONYA FINLEY V. TRANSUNION | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LA TONYA RENA FINLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TRANSUNION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

No. 20-15316

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-07165-HSG

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

La Tonya Rena Finley appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing her Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) action. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We

*
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

DEC 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-15316
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Finley’s action because Finley failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s–2(a)(3),
1681s–2(b), 1681e(b), 1681i(a)(1)(A); Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d
749, 756 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth requirements for reinvestigation); Gorman v.
Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009) (statutory duty to
investigate disputes and furnish accurate information to credit reporting agencies
arises only after a data furnisher receives a notice of dispute from a credit reporting
agency, not a consumer); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a
plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”).
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).
Appellees’ requests that the appeal be dismissed under Ninth Circuit Rule
42-1, set forth in their answering briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.