David Kruse, an individual v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID KRUSE, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-56564
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00675-DEW-
VBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Kruse appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
Appellee, Experian, and denying his motion for summary judgment. We review de
novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment on cross-motions for summary
FILED
MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
judgment. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142,
1145 (9th Cir. 2008).
Kruse’s suit alleged that Experian violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Liability under the FCRA is based on a prima
facie showing of inaccurate reporting. See Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010). The Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
executed by Kruse and by Citibank releases each of them from any “rights, claims,
and actions, contracts, suits, and/or liabilities.” So neither Kruse nor Citibank can
make further claims against each other on the subject of the release. But that
release does not contain a confidentiality agreement or limit Citibank’s ability to
report on the history of the account. Nor does the mutual release between Kruse
and Citibank purport to impose any obligations on third parties such as Experian.
Kruse’s self-serving assertion that he never owed money to Citibank is not
sufficient to create a disputed material fact. See FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 604 F.3d 1150,
1159 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A court] need not find a genuine issue of fact if, in its
determination, the particular declaration was uncorroborated and self-serving.”).
Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Experian because Kruse has
not shown any inaccuracies in his credit report, as is required to maintain an FCRA
claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --