Carvalho

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 18, 2010 [ 615 F.3d 1217 ], is amended as follows:

At pages 12121-22 [615 F.3d at 1232] of the slip opinion, replace:

with

At page 12123 of the slip opinion, lines 16-17 [615 F.3d at 1232], replace with cmake a prima facie case of inaccurate reporting?-.

With these amendments, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges O’Scannlain and Paez have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Trott has so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for hearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for hearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

The motion by the National Consumer Law Center and National Association of Consumer Advocates to file a brief of amici curiae in support of Carvalho’s petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot.

OPINION

We must decide whether a credit reporting agency is liable for a disputed credit report under California’s…