Loanna Hernandez v. Experian Information Solutions

facts “tending to show that [Experian] prepared a report containing inaccurate

1 On appeal, Experian no longer defends the application of collateral estoppel.

2 information.” See Guimond, 45 F.3d at 1332‒33 (citation omitted). The first

amended complaint plausibly alleges that Experian was aware of Hernandez’s

bankruptcy discharge, that the account at issue was discharged, and that Experian

inaccurately reported the discharged account on the report it prepared. Hernandez

also alleged that Experian initially removed the account at issue and then reinserted

it onto her credit report seven years after she filed for bankruptcy, plausibly

suggesting that Experian should have known the account was discharged.

Our recent decision in Moran v. Screening Pros, LLC, 25 F.4th 722 (9th Cir.

2022), does not prevent Hernandez from proceeding past the pleading stage. In that

case, we held that the defendant consumer reporting agency could not be liable for

its violation of the FCRA because its interpretation of § 1681c(a), while incorrect,

was not “objectively unreasonable.” Moran, 25 F.4th at 729; see id. at 728 (noting

that “[t]he FCRA imposes liability for negligent or willful…