Kamlesh Banga v. Equifax Information Services, LLC.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Banga’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAMLESH BANGA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15460
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-04807-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kamlesh Banga appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15460 2
Consumer Credit Reporting Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo, Aguilera v. Baca, 510 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on statute of
limitations grounds because Banga failed to file her action within two years of
when she knew or should have known that defendant disclosed her credit report to
third parties for promotional or other improper purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681p
(action under Fair Credit Reporting Act must be filed two years after plaintiff
discovers the violation or five years after the violation occurs, whichever is
earlier); Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.33 (action under California Consumer Credit
Reporting Act must be filed within two years after plaintiff knows or should have
known of the violation but no more than seven years after the earliest violation).
Banga’s remaining contentions, including her alleged claims against Cal
State 9 Credit Union, are unpersuasive.
Banga’s motion for referral to the court’s pro bono program is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --