Torrez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

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
Dalia Torrez,
Plaintiff,
v.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00199-TUC-AMM
No. CV-25-00204-TUC-AMM
No. CV-25-00218-TUC-AMM
No. CV-25-00219-TUC-AMM
ORDER
On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff Dalia Torrez, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint
and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in Torrez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(Docs. 1–2, CV-25-199-TUC-AMM (“Torrez I”).) Plaintiff subsequently filed three other
actions arising from the same operative facts: Torrez v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., CV-25-204-TUC-JR (“Torrez II”); Torrez v. Capital One Bank, N.A., CV-25-218-
TUC-RCC (“Torrez III”); and Torrez v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., CV-25-
219-TUC-RCC (“Torrez IV”). One of these cases was assigned to the Hon. Jacqueline M.
Rateau, and the other two were assigned to the Hon. Raner C. Collins.
On May 21, 2025, the Court consolidated Torrez II, III, and IV into Torrez I
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and Local Rule 42.1(b). (Doc. 7.)
I. IFP Applications
A party who files an action in federal district court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a). However, indigent plaintiffs may apply for a fee waiver. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must determine whether the litigant is unable to pay the filing fee before
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 13

- 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
granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See id. § 1915(a)(1).
Plaintiff filed nearly identical Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is all
four cases.1 (Doc. 2, Torrez I; Doc. 2, Torrez II; Doc. 2, Torrez III; Doc. 2, Torrez IV.)
The Court has reviewed the Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and finds that
Plaintiff lacks the means to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
II. Statutory Screening of Pro Se Complaints
A district court must screen and dismiss a complaint, or any portion of a
complaint, filed in forma pauperis that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)–(2). The district court applies the
same standard as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the complaint must
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The pleading standard does not demand “‘detailed factual
allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
To meet this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim to relief 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. Therefore, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to “continue to construe pro se
filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Watison,
668 F.3d at 1112. A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent
1 The only difference between the Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is the
current amount in Plaintiff’s listed checking account.
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 13

- 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
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342 (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
The Court will address each Complaint in turn.
III. Torrez I: Defendant JP Morgan
a. Complaint
In Torrez I, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JP
Morgan”) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). (Doc. 1 at 7–10, Torrez I.)
Plaintiff states that Defendant JP Morgan “furnished a tradeline, by partial account
number 429161100095*[,] to consumer reporting agencies Experian, Equifax, and
TransUnion.” (Id. at 6.) She alleges that she disputed “the completeness and/or accuracy
of [the] aforementioned data” through online dispute platforms for Experian, Equifax,
and TransUnion. (Id.) Plaintiff then avers that she “was denied a $200,000 home loan that
[she] needed in order to purchase a home suitable for [her] children[,]” and “[t]he denial
was based on incomplete, inaccurate[,] and improperly handled credit information
reported by Defendant [JP Morgan].” (Id. at 4.) The Complaint alleges five claims against
Defendant JP Morgan, each respectively citing subsections (A) through (E) of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s-2(b)(1). (Id. at 7–10.).
b. Applicable Law
The FCRA imposes two primary duties on “furnishers of information to consumer
reporting agencies.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2(a)–(b). The first is the duty to provide accurate
information. Id. § 1681s-2(a). The second is the duty to investigate the accuracy of
reported information upon receiving a notice of a dispute “with regard to the
completeness or accuracy of any information provided . . . .” Id. § 1681s-2(b). There is no
private right of action for a consumer to enforce the duty to provide accurate information
under subsection (a). See, e.g., Cisneros v. Trans Union, LLC, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1167,
1174 (D. Ariz. 2003) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(d)). A consumer may, however, file suit
against a furnisher of information for a breach of its duty to investigate the accuracy of
reported information under subsection (b). Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 282
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 13

- 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
F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002).
A viable claim under § 1681s-2(b) requires the plaintiff to show:
(1) a credit reporting inaccuracy existed on plaintiff’s credit
report; (2) plaintiff notified the consumer reporting agency
that plaintiff disputed the reporting as inaccurate; (3) the
consumer reporting agency notified the furnisher of the
alleged inaccurate information of the dispute; and (4) the
furnisher failed to investigate the inaccuracies or further
failed to comply with the requirements in 15 U.S.C. 1681s-
2(b)(1)(A)–(E).
Berrow v. Navient Sols. LLC, 685 F. Supp. 3d 859, 865 (D. Ariz. 2023) (quoting Cook v.
Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, No. 2:18-cv-1548-HRH, 2018 WL 3707922, at *3 (D.
Ariz. Aug. 3, 2018)).
The investigation must be both “reasonable” and “non-cursory.” Gross v.
CitiMortgage, Inc., 33 F.4th 1246, 1251 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Gorman v. Wolpoff &
Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2009)). “A reasonable investigation
requires ‘an inquiry likely to turn up information about the underlying facts and positions
of the parties,’ which is not achieved by ‘a cursory or sloppy review of the dispute.’”
Henry v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., No. CV-19-01121-PHX-SRB, 2020 WL 8921079, at *5
(D. Ariz. Apr. 27, 2020) (quoting Gorman, 584 F.3d at 1155). “A consumer may sue a
furnisher and recover damages if the furnisher willfully or negligently violated [the]
FCRA.” Gross, 33 F.4th at 1251.
c. Analysis
Plaintiff fails to plead a claim against Defendant JP Morgan. As a threshold
matter, the Court notes that the five claims alleged against Defendant JP Morgan appear
to be better construed as a single claim under § 1681s-2(b). See Berrow, 685 F. Supp. 3d
at 865.
Through this lens, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead the first element of the
claim, specifically, that an inaccuracy existed regarding her account with Defendant JP
Morgan. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant JP Morgan “furnished a tradeline, by the partial
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 13

- 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
account number 429161100095*[,]” but she failed to allege whether the inaccuracy lie in
the partial account number or in some other error with the account. (Doc. 1 at 6, Torrez
I.) Plaintiff avers that she noted “missing data from April 2022 through July 2023,” but
this does not provide clarification as to the alleged inaccuracy. (Id.)
Without any information as to the missing data, the Court will dismiss the
Complaint in Torrez I. Plaintiff may amend if she can allege sufficient facts to support
the elements of a claim under § 1681s-2(b) against Defendant JP Morgan.
IV. Torrez II: Defendant Midland
a. Complaint
In Torrez II, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc.
(“Midland”) violated the FCRA and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).
(Doc. 1 at 8–14, Torrez II.) Plaintiff states that Defendant Midland “purchased the
alleged account and accounting information in question from Comenity Bank, a creditor.”
(Id. at 8.) She further alleges that “[o]n or about November 2024[,] Defendant [Midland]
was furnishing the tradeline by account number 31616**** to consumer reporting
agencies Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion.” (Id.) Plaintiff avers that she disputed “the
completeness and/or accuracy of [the] aforementioned data” through online dispute
platforms for Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, and attached notes stating, “missing
data from 03/2022 through 02/2023.” (Id.) Plaintiff similarly attributes the denial of her
home loan to Defendant Midland’s inaccurate report. (Id. at 9.) She further alleges that
Defendant Midland sought to collect on the debt, and that Plaintiff requested that
Defendant Midland send her the “method of verifying the data it furnished . . . .” (Id. at
10.)
The Complaint lists eight claims against Defendant Midland. (Id. at 10–14.) Like
in Torrez I, Claims One through Five appear to be one claim for failing to reasonably
investigate an inaccuracy under § 1681s-2(b). (Id. at 10–13.)
Claims Six, Seven, and Eight arise under the FDCPA. (Id. at 13–14.) In Claim Six,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Midland “violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by falsely
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 5 of 13

- 6 -
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
representing the legal status of the alleged debt to the consumer reporting agencies.” (Id.
at 13.) She alternatively alleges that Defendant Midland violated § 1692e(10) by using
“wrongful conduct and deceptive means to attempt to collect any debt . . . .” (Id.) Claim
Seven is that Defendant Midland violated § 1692e(2) and § 1692e(8) by reporting false
information to a third party “when it knew from its’ [sic] own records that Defendant has
no clear chain of title, and therefore that the account did not belong to Plaintiff.” (Id. at
14.) Finally, Claim Eight is that Defendant Midland violated § 1692e(5) by “threaten[ing]
Plaintiff on several occasions that it was going to take action that cannot legally be taken
and/or that was not intended to [be] take[n] against Plaintiff.” (Id.)
b. FCRA
i. Analysis
Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead that Defendant Midland violated § 1681s-2(b)
because Plaintiff did not identify how the information that Defendant Midland provided
was inaccurate. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Claims One through Five and allow
Plaintiff to amend if she can allege facts to support the elements of § 1681s-2(b) against
Defendant Midland.
c. FDCPA
i. Applicable Law
The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using “any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” 15
U.S.C. § 1692e. “[A]ny debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this
subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.
The threshold elements of any FDCPA claim are “(1) the plaintiff must be a
‘consumer’; (2) the defendant must be a ‘debt collector’; and (3) the defendant must have
committed some act or omission in violation of the FDCPA.” Gonzalez v. Law Office of
Allen Robert King, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1118, 1126 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Robinson v.
Managed Accounts Receivables Corp., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1058 (C.D. Cal. 2009)).
///
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 6 of 13

- 7 -
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
ii. Analysis
Here, Plaintiff alleges both that she is a consumer and that Defendant Midland is a
debt collector as defined by the statute. (Doc. 1 at 6–7, Torrez II.) Plaintiff has not,
however, sufficiently plead that Defendant Midland violated the FDCPA. Although
Plaintiff alludes to collection efforts and “threatened legal actions,” she does not
articulate how Defendant Midland sought to collect her debt nor in what way these means
were allegedly false, deceptive, or misleading. (Id. at 9–10.) Accordingly, the Court will
dismiss Claims Six, Seven, and Eight. Plaintiff may amend if she can sufficiently allege
how Defendant Midland sought to collect a debt and how that collection violated the
FDCPA.
V. Torrez III: Defendant Capital One
a. Complaint
In Torrez III, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Capital One Bank, N.A. (“Capital
One”) violated the FCRA. (Doc. 1 at 2, Torrez III.) She states that “Defendant [Capital
One] furnished a tradeline, by the partial account number 639305****850701[,] to
consumer reporting agencies Experian and Equifax.” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that
she disputed the “completeness and/or accuracy” of the information via online platforms
for Experian and Equifax, and she “notat[ed] the dispute as ‘missing data.’” (Id. at 2–3.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Capital One verified the accuracy of the information to
Experian and Equifax. (Id.) As in Torrez I and II, Plaintiff asserts that she was unable to
obtain a home loan due to Defendant Capital One’s inaccurate report. (Id.) Plaintiff again
asserts the elements of § 1681s-2(b) as separate claims against Defendant Capital One.
(Id. at 4–7.)
b. Analysis
The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s FCRA claim against Defendant Capital One for
the same reason it dismissed the claims in Torrez I and Torrez II. Specifically, Plaintiff
has not identified the inaccurate information that Defendant Capital One allegedly
furnished. Plaintiff may file an amended claim against Defendant Capital One if she can
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 7 of 13

- 8 -
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
allege sufficient facts to support the elements of § 1681s-2(b).
VI. Torrez IV: Defendant Experian
a. Complaint
In Torrez IV, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
(“Experian”) violated the FCRA and Arizona’s Fair Credit Reporting Act (“AFCRA”).
(Doc. 1 at 1, Torrez IV.) She asserts that Defendant Experian “inaccurately report[ed]
personal information regarding Plaintiff’s address and phone number” as well as
“inaccurate and/or incomplete information regarding the accounts furnished by . . . (1)
JPMCB CARD; (2) TD BANK USA/TARGETCRED; (3) KOHLS/CAPONE; (4)
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEM; (5) VANTAGE WEST CREDIT UN; [and] (6)
VANTAGE WEST CREDIT UN.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff disputed the information, but,
despite a reinvestigation, the allegedly inaccurate information still appears on Plaintiff’s
credit report. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff lists eleven claims against Defendant Experian. (Id. at
4–9.)
b. Claim One
Claim One alleges that Defendant Experian violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) when it
failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure that Plaintiff’s credit report was
accurate. (Id. at 4.)
A consumer reporting agency is liable for failing to “follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about
whom the report relates.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). “In such lawsuits, before a court
considers the reasonableness of the agency’s procedures, the consumer must make a
‘prima facie showing’ of the inaccuracy in the agency’s reporting.” Gross, 33 F.4th at
1251 (citing Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d 749, 756 (9th Cir. 2018)).
Here, Plaintiff fails to make such a prima facie showing because she did not
articulate how the information that Defendant Experian reported was inaccurate. Instead,
she makes conclusory statements listing six different accounts with no further
information. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Claim One and allow Plaintiff the
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 8 of 13

- 9 -
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
opportunity to amend if she can explain the inaccuracy in Defendant Experian’s
reporting.
c. Claim Two
Claim Two asserts that Defendant Experian violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g by failing
to “provide a full file disclosure to Plaintiff.” (Doc. 1 at 4, Torrez IV.)
The FCRA mandates that consumer reporting agencies must disclose, upon
request, “[a]ll information in the consumer’s file at the time of the request” subject to
certain limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a). “The willful failure to comply with such a
disclosure request gives rise to a private cause of action for actual or statutory damages.”
Tailford v. Experian Info. Sols. Inc., 26 F.4th 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 15
U.S.C. § 1681n(a)).
Plaintiff did not provide any facts to suggest she requested disclosure of her file
from Defendant Experian or that Defendant Experian refused such a request. She merely
states in a conclusory fashion that Defendant Experian violated § 1681g. In the absence
of any factual support, the Court will dismiss Claim Two with leave to amend.
d. Claims Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, & Eight
Claims Three through Eight allege that Defendant Experian violated 15 U.S.C. §
1681i by failing to implement reasonable procedures to reinvestigate and remedy
allegedly inaccurate information in Plaintiff’s credit report. (Doc. 1 at 4–7, Torrez IV.)
“[A] Plaintiff filing suit under section 1681i must make a ‘prima facie showing of
inaccurate reporting.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir.
2010) (quoting Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2008)). “[I]f there
is no inaccuracy, then the reasonableness of the investigation is not in play.” Gross, 33
F.4th at 1251.
At this stage, it is unnecessary to consider whether Defendant Experian
implemented reasonable investigation procedures because Plaintiff has failed to identify
any inaccuracy. She states that Defendant Experian inaccurately reported her address and
phone number but does not explain how. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant Experian
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 9 of 13

- 10 -
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
inaccurately reported six different accounts but fails to provide any further information to
show how these accounts were inaccurate. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Claims
Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. Plaintiff may amend these claims if she can
allege sufficient facts to show Defendant Experian’s reporting was inaccurate.
e. Claim Nine
In Claim Nine, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Experian violated Ariz. Rev. Stat.
(“A.R.S.”) § 44-1694(A) when it “failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to
determine whether the disputed information was accurate or delete the item.” (Doc. 1 at
8, Torrez IV.)
Section 44-1694(A) provides:
If any consumer disputes the accuracy of any item in the
consumer’s records with any consumer reporting agency, the
consumer may give notice in writing to the consumer
reporting agency specifying in what manner the report is
inaccurate and the consumer reporting agency shall
reinvestigate the inaccuracy at no charge to the consumer and
record the current status of the disputed information. The
consumer reporting agency shall provide forms for such
notice and shall assist a consumer in preparing the notice
when requested.
A.R.S. § 44-1694(A).
Plaintiff fails to allege that she specified the manner in which Defendant
Experian’s report was inaccurate or that Defendant Experian failed to reinvestigate at no
charge to her. Indeed, Plaintiff states that Defendant Experian did reinvestigate the
matter. The Court will, therefore, dismiss Claim Nine and allow Plaintiff an opportunity
to amend.
f. Claim Ten
Claim Ten alleges that Defendant Experian violated A.R.S. § 44-1694(B)(3) by
“fail[ing] to provide a written description of the procedures used to determine the
accuracy and completeness of the disputed information.” (Doc. 1 at 8, Torrez IV.)
Section 44-1694(B) requires a consumer reporting agency to “deny or admit the
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 10 of 13

- 11 -
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
inaccuracy to the consumer in writing” within thirty days. A.R.S. § 44-1694(B). “If the
consumer reporting agency denies the inaccuracy, [it] shall include . . . (3) [a] notice that
states that, if requested by the consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall provide the
consumer with a description of the procedure used by the consumer reporting agency to
determine the accuracy and completeness of the information.” Id. § 44-1694(B)(3).
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that she requested a description of the procedure used
by Defendant Experian nor that Defendant Experian failed to provide her with written
notice that she could request such information. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Claim
Ten with leave to amend.
g. Claim Eleven
In her final claim, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Experian violated A.R.S. § 44-
1695(C) “because [it] failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy when preparing a consumer report purportedly concerning Plaintiff.” (Doc. 1 at
9, Torrez IV.)
Section 44-1695(C) states:
Any consumer reporting agency . . . that is grossly negligent
in the use or preparation of a consumer report or that acts
wilfully [sic] and maliciously with intent to harm a consumer
is liable to the consumer for actual damages, if any, punitive
damages and attorney fees and court costs. If a consumer
reporting agency prepares a consumer report, the consumer
reporting agency shall follow reasonable procedures to ensure
the maximum possible accuracy of the information relating to
the consumer who is the subject of the consumer report.
A.R.S. § 44-1695(C).
Here, however, Plaintiff fails to allege how Defendant Experian’s reinvestigation
procedures were unreasonable or how Defendant Experian acted either negligently or
willfully. Plaintiff’s legal conclusions are insufficient to state a claim. The Court will,
therefore, dismiss Count Eleven with leave to amend.
///
///
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 11 of 13

- 12 -
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
VII. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis are GRANTED. (Doc.
2, Torrez I; Doc. 2, Torrez II; Doc. 2, Torrez III; Doc. 2, Torrez IV.)
(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint in Torrez I is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(Doc. 1, Torrez I.)
(3) Plaintiff’s Complaint in Torrez II is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(Doc. 1, Torrez II.)
(4) Plaintiff’s Complaint in Torrez III is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(Doc. 1, Torrez III.)
(5) Plaintiff’s Complaint in Torrez IV is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(Doc. 1, Torrez IV.)
(6) Within 30 days, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in accordance with
this Order. The Amended Complaint must contain all claims against
Defendants JP Morgan, Midland, Capital One, and Experian. The Amended
Complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety and may not incorporate
any part of the original complaints by reference. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (an amended complaint supersedes any previous
complaint, meaning that the Court will treat the original Complaint as non-
existent). The Court is aware that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. She shall
familiarize herself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules
for the District of Arizona, both of which can be found on the Court’s web site
at www.azd.uscourts.gov. She is also advised that a Handbook for Self-
Represented Litigants is available on the Court’s website at:
https://publicapps.azd.uscourts.gov/prose-survey/.
(7) If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of
this Order, the Clerk of Court SHALL close these cases without further notice.
///
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 12 of 13

- 13 -
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
(8) Because these matters have been consolidated, all future filings SHALL be
filed in the lead case: No. CV-25-00199-TUC-AMM.
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00199-AMM Document 8 Filed 01/21/26 Page 13 of 13