Steven G. Millett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC., an Experian Company

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN G. MILLETT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MELODY J. MILLETT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.;
CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC., an
Experian Company,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55958
D.C. No. 8:05-cv-00879-JVS-RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2010
Pasadena, California
FILED
JUN 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the**
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
2
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BREYER, District
Judge.**
Steven Millett appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
in favor of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Consumerinfo.com
(collectively, “Experian”), the Defendants in the district court. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not err by withdrawing its order granting Millet’s
motion to amend because the district court issued its order before it received and
reviewed Experian’s opposition to the motion. See City of Los Angeles, Harbor
Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885–86 (9th Cir. 2001). The
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Millett’s motion to amend
because the motion was based on consumer survey evidence that the district court
had previously rejected. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Experian on
Millett’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) claims. Experian’s
advertisements were primarily aimed at credit report monitoring; the identity-theft

-- 2 of 3 --

3
protection benefit advertised by Credit Manager is clearly tied to daily credit report
monitoring. Based on the information properly before it, the district court did not
err in concluding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled about the level
of identify-theft protection offered by Credit Manager. See Colgan v. Leatherman
Tool Group, Inc., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 36, 48 (Cal. App. 2006). Finally, the Experian
trademark at the top of the advertisements truthfully reflects Consumerinfo.com’s
status as a subsidiary of Experian North America. Moreover, Credit Manager must
operate in conjunction with Experian because Experian provides the credit
reporting services that Credit Manager utilizes. Accordingly, a reasonable
consumer would not be misled about the source of the services offered by Credit
Manager. See Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008).
We have considered and reject all other arguments raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --