I. Background

A. Facts The following facts are drawn from the original Complaint in this action (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1-1), brought by Plaintiff Lillie M. Middlebrooks (“Plaintiff”). This is an action against Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FCRA when it “failed to adopt and follow reasonable procedure to assure maximum possible accuracy” of Plaintiff’s

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 20-01332-DOC-ADS Date: November 27, 2020

Page 2

Experian credit report and credit score. Compl. ¶ 95–116. Plaintiff’s allegations center around hard inquiries by Sacor Financial, Inc. that now appear on Plaintiff’s credit report and which Plaintiff contends are “innacurate.” Id. ¶ 18–19. On our around February 17, 2017, Plaintiff alleges that she disputed these hard inquiries with Experian. Id. ¶ 24–28. Plaintiff saw a subsequent reduction in her credit score that resulted in difficulty obtaining a satisfactory home mortgage loan in 2018. Id. at 81–83.

B. Procedural History i. The Prior Proceedings Plaintiff has filed two prior lawsuits related to the dispute over the hard inquiries by Sacor Financial, Inc. (“Sacor”). In the first suit, Plaintiff alleged that Experian furnished Plaintiff’s credit report to Sacor without a permissible purpose as required by the FCRA. See Middlebrooks v. Sacor Fin., Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00679-SCJ, (N.D. Ga. Aug. 15, 2017) (“Middlebrooks No. 1”). In that case, Experian was dismissed as a party and the Northern District of Georgia subsequently granted summary judgment to the remaining Defendant, Sacor. On May 30, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Middlebrooks v. Sacor Fin. Inc., et al, No. 1:17-CV-0679-SCJ-JSA, 775 Fed. Appx. 594 (11th Cir., May 30, 2019).

On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit (“Middlebrooks No. 2”), again alleging that Defendant Experian violated the FCRA by giving Plaintiff’s credit report to Sacor without a permissible purpose. See Mot. at 3–4. Plaintiff’s claims were subsequently dismissed based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

ii. The Present Action Plaintiff filed her most recent Complaint on July 23, 2020 (Dkt. 1). Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on October 8, 2020 (Dkt. 7). Plaintiff filed her opposition on October 21, 2020 (Dkt. 10), Defendant filed a reply on November 7, 2020 (Dkt. 14). Plaintiff again alleges that Defendant violated the FCRA by providing copies of her credit report to Sacor Financial.

II. Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s FCRA claims fail because they are barred by res judicata. “Res judicata applies when the earlier suit: (1) reached a final judgment on the merits; (2) involved the same cause of action or claim; and (3) involved identical parties

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 20-01332-DOC-ADS Date: November 27, 2020

Page 3

or privies.” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Sidhu v. Flecto Co., Inc., 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff argues that her claims are not precluded because Experian issued credit reports containing the hard inquiries at issue here in August 2018, two months after her filing of Middlebrooks No. 2. Opp’n at 3. Therefore, she argues that they are not the “same claim” for the purposes of res judicata. Plaintiff’s claims meet all three factors required for this Court to find that they are precluded. There is no question that the Court in Middlebrooks No. 2 issued a “final judgment” when it dismissed Plaintiff’s claims in that case nor that the same parties present here, Middlebrooks and Experian, were also present in that case. While Plaintiff attempts to argue that the “same claim” is not present in this case that was present in Middlebrooks No. 2, the proper inquiry is whether the two lawsuits arise out of the same “transactional nucleus of facts.” See Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Employers Constr. Indus. Pension, Welfare & Training Trust Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1993). In this case, both actions relate to Sacor’s hard inquiries on Plaintiff’s Experian credit report. This constitutes the same transactional nucleus of facts, and the question of whether Experian’s reporting of the Sacor inquiries violated the FCRA as a matter of law has already been litigated by the Northern District of Georgia in Middlebrooks No. 2.

III. Disposition

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and thus DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety. The Court also DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Request for Leave to Appear Telephonically (Dkt. 18) and Ex Parte Application to Continue Scheduling Conference (Dkt. 21).

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk: kd

CIVIL-GEN