Shahadi v. Navy Federal Credit Union

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Mary Shahadi,
Plaintiff,
v.
Navy Federal Credit Union,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-03363-PHX-SMB
ORDER
The Court now considers Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and Leave to File
Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). The Court denies the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed this suit seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly,
the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) to assess whether it complied with 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court determined that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a
claim for relief and thus dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. (See generally Doc.
15.) That Order was docketed on October 9, 2025 and it gave Plaintiff thirty days to file a
First Amended Complaint. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff failed to comply with this deadline and
the case was dismissed.
On November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present Motion. Plaintiff avers that she
“fully intended to comply with the Court’s deadline and has been diligently preparing an
amended complaint addressing all deficiencies identified by the Court.” (Doc. 17 at 1.)
However, Plaintiff “was unable to meet the Court’s deadline due to unexpected
Case 2:25-cv-03363-SMB Document 20 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
emergencies outside of her control.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that she was a robbed on
November 19, 2025. (Id.) However, in an attached Declaration, Plaintiff contends that she
“was the victim of a theft/fraud incident involving a rental vehicle arrangement” “[o]n or
about November 8–10.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff attaches an email purporting to corroborate
the fact that she “immediately reported the theft to the Phoenix Police Department.” (Id.)
The attached email does not include a date. To be clear, Plaintiff does not refer to two
discrete events as she cites to the same email as corroborating both the November 19 and
the November 8–10 events.
II. FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE
Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts may “relieve a
party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for reasons including “mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” and “any other reason that justifies relief.”
“Excusable neglect encompasses situations in which the failure to comply with a filing
deadline is attributable to negligence, and includes omissions caused by carelessness.”
Arzamendi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:17-CV-01485-LJO-SKO, 2018 WL 6025599,
at *1(E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018).
The Court is unable to discern why Plaintiff failed to meet this Court’s filing
deadline. Plaintiff had thirty days from October 9, 2025 to file an Amended Complaint.
Thus, Plaintiff had until November 9 to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff claims she
was unable to meet this deadline due to an alleged November 19 robbery—ten days after
the filing deadline. (Doc. 17 at 1.) Confusingly, Plaintiff’s Declaration then claims the
robbery took place sometime between November 8–10. (Id. at 3.) This presents multiple
issues. First, these dates conflict with the date given in the Motion. Second, it is unclear
why Plaintiff is only able to provide a three-day range as to when the alleged robbery took
place. Third, one of the days in this three-day range falls outside of the filing deadline.
And fourth, Plaintiff attaches an email corroborating the robbery that includes neither a
date nor any substance regarding the underlying event.
Although Rule 60 is applied generously, “it is axiomatic that pro se litigants,
Case 2:25-cv-03363-SMB Document 20 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
whatever their ability level, are subject to the same procedural requirements as other
litigants.” Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). Here, Plaintiff failed
to abide by an unambiguous procedural requirement and offers an ambiguous, conflicting,
and functionally uncorroborated explanation as to why she failed to meet this deadline.
III. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint (“PAC”) fails to otherwise
correct the defects identified in this Court’s previous order. Again, the Court previously
dismissed the Complaint under Rule 8, which “demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 556). A complaint that provides “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor will a
complaint suffice if it presents nothing more than “naked assertions” without “further
factual enhancement.” Id. at 557. The PAC fails to abide by this standard.
The PAC concerns two accounts Plaintiff held with Navy Federal Credit Union
(“NCFU”) that were “disputed, mishandled, and inaccurately reported.” (Doc. 19 at 2.)
NCFU is alleged to be a “a furnisher of information to consumer reporting agencies.” (Id.
at 1.) At a general level, the PAC is too broad to satisfy Rule 8. Plaintiff brings a claim
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1). (Id. at 3.) This
claim fails because 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1) does not create a private right of action. See
Kar v. Lincoln Auto. Fin. Servs., No. CV 24-05538-KS, 2024 WL 5274620, at *5 (C.D.
Cal. Nov. 15, 2024).
Plaintiff also brings a claim under § 1681-2(b)(1). (Doc. 19 at 3.) “To state a claim
Case 2:25-cv-03363-SMB Document 20 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
under § 1681s-2(b)(1), the plaintiff must show that the information in the [credit] report is
incomplete or inaccurate, meaning that it is patently incorrect, or because it is misleading
in such as way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit
decisions.” Kar, 2024 WL 5274620, at *6 (citation modified). “The plaintiff must also
show (1) the furnisher of information received notice of the dispute from a credit reporting
agency; (2) it failed to perform a reasonable investigation upon receiving such notice;
(3) the failure to investigate was willful or negligent; and (4) plaintiff was harmed.” Id.
(citation modified). The PAC only alleges that “Plaintiff submitted disputes to Experian,
Equifax, and TransUnion” which “notified NFCU of the disputes.” (Doc. 19 at 2.) “NFCU
‘verified’ the disputed information without providing documentation, validating the debt,
or correcting known inaccuracies” and otherwise “failed to conduct a reasonable
investigation.” (Id.) Of course, the PAC merely restates the elements of a § 1681-2(b)(1)
claim without any factual enhancement. And as was the case previously, Plaintiff fails to
identify specific inaccuracies on her credit report. (See Doc. 15 at 5.) The PAC discusses
the so-called “disputed information” in the most general possible terms and otherwise fails
to identify when and how these disputes were submitted to the credit reporting agencies.
See Kar, 2024 WL 5274620, at *6.
Finally, Plaintiff brings a claim under § 1681b. (Doc. 19 at 2.) “[T]he FCRA
generally prohibits obtaining a credit report, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f), but then provides a
numerous and diverse list of exceptions.” Nayab v. Cap. One Bank (USA), N.A., 942 F.3d
480. 495 (9th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff alleges that NFCU, without authorization, “obtained
Plaintiff’s consumer report through a hard inquiry” “[a]fter closing or charging off the
accounts.” (Id.) Plaintiff makes no further allegations substantiating this claim. Thus, the
PAC is too conclusory to plausibly state a claim for relief.
…
…
…
…
Case 2:25-cv-03363-SMB Document 20 Filed 06/11/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case and Leave to File
Amended Complaint (Doc. 17).
Dated this 11th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-03363-SMB Document 20 Filed 06/11/26 Page 5 of 5