WINSTON O'MALLY V. PNC BANK, N.A., No. 16-55700 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WINSTON O’MALLY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55700 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-08644-DSF-JPR v. MEMORANDUM* PNC BANK, N.A.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, Defendants-Appellees. 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). 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 16-55700

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.