Nick Makreas v. the Moore Law Group, A.P.C.

MEMORANDUM

Nick Makreas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other things, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and California state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th Cir.2009). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 979 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Makreas’s FCRA claim because Makreas failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants accessed his credit report without a permissible purpose, or that there was a bona fide dispute regarding the debt. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 674-76 (9th Cir.2010) (discussing the two requirements for establishing permissible purpose under 15 U.S.C. § 168lb(a)(3)(A)); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1163 (9th Cir.2009) (under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), a furnisher can only be liable by failing to report a bona fide dispute— that is, “a dispute that could materially alter how the reported debt is understood”). Moreover, to the extent that the claim…