Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 23, 2025

Cao v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:24-cv-02666
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Consumer CreditMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cao v. Equifax, Judge Gilliam granted Equifax’s motion to dismiss, allowing Cao 21 days to file an amended complaint.

Who this affects

Kai Cao’s Counts I and VII against Equifax Information Services, LLC were dismissed at this stage, with permission to file an amended complaint within 21 days.

What happened

In Kai Cao v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Cao alleged that Equifax reported an inaccurate credit-card balance tied to unauthorized purchases.

Cao brought claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Act. Equifax challenged claims alleging that it failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure accurate reports.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Equifax’s motion to dismiss because Cao had not clearly alleged that Equifax provided an inaccurate report to a third party or identified the inaccurate information. The court allowed Cao 21 days to file an amended complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cao v. Equifax Information Services, LLC · No. 4:24-cv-02666
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Jan. 23, 2025

Background

Kai Cao alleged that an unknown person obtained his Bank of America credit card and made more than $6,000 in unauthorized purchases at Costco while Cao was out of the country. Cao alleged that Bank of America denied his fraud claim and continued reporting the credit-card balance to consumer reporting agencies. He further alleged that, beginning in September 2021, he learned that Equifax was reporting the allegedly fraudulent balance on his credit report.

Cao asserted claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Act. Equifax moved to dismiss Counts I and VII, which alleged violations of the provisions requiring reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that these claims required Cao to allege that Equifax prepared a consumer report containing inaccurate information and furnished that report to a third party. Cao’s amended complaint alleged generally that, within the five years before filing the complaint, Equifax prepared and distributed one or more reports about him containing misleading or inaccurate information related to his Bank of America account.

The court found that these allegations did not clearly show that Equifax had provided an inaccurate consumer report to a third party or identify what information was inaccurate. The court also stated that Equifax should not have to speculate about the factual basis for the claims or whether they were filed within the applicable limitations period. Cao indicated that he could provide more detail.

Ruling

The court granted Equifax’s motion to dismiss. It did not state that amendment would be futile and allowed Cao to file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order. The court cautioned that Cao should fully plead his best case because it was unlikely to grant further permission to amend. The court also set a case-management conference for March 18, 2025, and directed the parties to file a joint case-management statement by March 11, 2025.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.