NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEMMA RISER, No. 23-35502

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05238-LK

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CENTRAL PORTFOLIO CONTROL, INC.,

a Minnesota Corporation and Collection Agency; TRANS UNION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,

INC., an Ohio corporation; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Lauren J. King, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 25, 2024 Portland, Oregon

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: LEE, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Gemma Riser appeals the district court’s orders granting judgment on the

pleadings for Trans Union and summary judgment for Central Portfolio. Our

jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Parker v. Cnty. of Riverside,

78 F.4th 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2023), and summary judgment, Karuk Tribe of Cal. v.

U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1017 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We affirm the

order granting judgment on the pleadings for Trans Union, but we vacate and remand

the summary judgment order for Central Portfolio.

As the parties know the facts at issue in this case, we do not restate them here.

1. Riser fails to state a claim against Trans Union. She argues Trans Union’s

inclusion of the $2,790.37 debt on her credit report violated sections 1681(e) and

1681(i) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). We disagree. We have recognized

that credit reporting agencies like Trans Union have a more limited duty to

investigate the validity of a debt. See Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629

F.3d 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Gross v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 33 F.4th 1246,

1253 (9th Cir. 2022). We thus have held that a plaintiff must make a prima facie

case showing that the inaccuracy in the agency’s credit reporting does not result from

an available legal defense to the reported debt. See id. at 1251. Here, Riser’s

pleadings demonstrate she has not made that required showing. She argues that

2 Trans Union’s credit reporting contained an inaccuracy because various Washington

state laws absolved her of the $2,790.37 debt. The claim that state law absolves

Riser of the debt necessarily raises a legal defense, which Trans Union is not required

to resolve. See Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 892 (“[D]etermining whether the consumer

has a valid defense ‘is a question for a court to resolve in a suit against the [creditor,]

not a job imposed upon consumer reporting agencies by the FCRA.’”) (internal

citation omitted). The district court thus correctly dismissed her FCRA claim against

Trans Union.

2. Genuine issues of material fact surrounding Riser’s liability for the debt

preclude summary judgment of her claims against Central Portfolio. The district

court correctly stated that Riser’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),

Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA), and Washington tort of outrage

claims all fail if Riser personally owed the $2,790.37 debt. Riser argues that she did

not owe the debt because Washington law generally forbids a healthcare provider

from directly billing a Medicaid client for covered services even if the provider has

not received payment from the federal government. Wash. Admin. Code 182-502-

0160(4). But a healthcare provider can directly bill a Medicaid client who “refuse[s]

to complete and sign insurance forms, billing documents, or other forms necessary

for the provider to bill the third party insurance carrier for the service.” Wash.

Admin. Code 182-502-0160(6)(a)(ii); see also Wash. Admin. Code 182-501-

3 0200(9)(b).

We hold that factual questions remain regarding whether Riser personally

owed a debt to the hospital. Central Portfolio argues that the hospital could have

directly billed her because she refused to provide accurate information to process

her claim (e.g., date of birth, third-party insurance availability, accurate contact

information). The record, however, is unclear with respect to who is at fault for the

lack of accurate information that allegedly led to the denial of Riser’s claims.

The district court thus erred in granting Central Portfolio’s motion for

summary judgment against Riser’s FDCPA claim. And because we vacate and

remand summary judgment of the FDCPA claim, the district court must address the

viability of the state law claims. We remand them for the district to consider,

including, but not limited to, whether the FCRA preempts Riser’s state law claims.

We VACATE and REMAND the district court’s order granting summary

judgment in Central Portfolio’s favor. We AFFIRM in all other respects. The

parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.

4