S. David Steinmetz v. Exxonmobil Oil Corporation;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
S. DAVID STEINMETZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55446
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01635-JM-AJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
S. David Steinmetz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Acts (“FDCPA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”),
FILED
JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-55446 2
and California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Knievel v. ESPN, 393
F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation on the FCRA claim because, contrary to Steinmetz’s contention
otherwise, whether a defendant is a “furnisher of credit information” is not a moot
point. Only “furnishers” can be held liable under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), see
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2009),
and Steinmetz failed to dispute ExxonMobil’s evidence that it was not a furnisher
of credit information.
The district court properly dismissed Steinmetz’s FCRA claims as to
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and GE Money Bank, F.S.B. because Steinmetz
failed sufficiently to allege in his third amended complaint that Citibank and GE
were furnishers who had received notice of the dispute from a credit reporting
agency. See id. at 1154 (furnisher’s duties under the FCRA “arise only after the
furnisher receives notice of dispute from a [credit reporting agency]; notice of a
dispute received directly from the consumer does not trigger furnishers’ duties
under subsection (b)”).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-55446 3
The district court properly dismissed Steinmetz’s FDCPA claim because
Steinmetz failed sufficiently to allege that defendants were “debt collectors.” 15
U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining debt collector as one who “regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed
or due another”).
Steinmetz’s remaining contentions, including those concerning discovery
and his defamation claims, are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --