ANI GHAZARYAN V. EQUIFAX INFO. SERVS., LLC, No. 17-55132 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANI GHAZARYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-55132 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-09604-RGK-MRW v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, A Georgia Limited Liability Company, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 10, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WHELAN, ** District Judge. Ani Ghazaryan appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on her claims against Equifax Information Services, LLC for violations of the Fair * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.16. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Shaw v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 891 F.3d 749, 755 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm. In conducting a reinvestigation, a consumer credit reporting agency must “review and consider all relevant information” that the consumer submits regarding the disputed information, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(4); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.16(b), notify the furnisher within five business days, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.16(a), and “promptly” correct or delete from the consumer’s file any inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A)(i); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.16(b). Viewing the factual record in the light most favorable to Ghazaryan, Equifax’s investigation was reasonable as a matter of law. Equifax notified Discover that Ghazaryan disputed being late on her credit card payment and stated that Discover representative Jordan “confirmed . . . that she was never late.” Equifax also passed along the phone number for Jordan that Ghazaryan had provided. Equifax transmitted this information “in the manner established with” Discover, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(2)(A), using ACDV, the “automated system” envisioned by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(D). 2 Equifax had no duty, as Ghazaryan contends, “to resolve the ultimate contradiction between Discover’s response to the ACDV versus the confirmation of inaccuracy made by [Jordan].” “[C]redit reporting agencies are not tribunals. They simply collect and report information furnished by others.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 891 (9th Cir. 2010). Equifax had determined Discover to be a reliable source, and Ghazaryan gave Equifax no reason to question that determination. Therefore, Equifax was entitled to rely on Discover’s confirmation that Ghazaryan had missed a payment notwithstanding that this information ultimately proved to be inaccurate. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
