Jeffrey Kuns, an individual, on his own behalf v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY KUNS, an individual, on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-55562
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-07118-DMG-
PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and QUIST,** Senior District
Judge.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Kuns appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of
his putative class action complaint against Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.
FILED
MAY 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district court’s
decision de novo, construing the facts alleged in the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1207
(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s decision.
Kuns alleges that because his former home was bought with a purchase
money mortgage and sold through a nonjudicial foreclosure, he had no personal
liability for the deficiency that resulted from the foreclosure sale. Cal. Code Civ.
Proc. §§ 580b, 580d. Ocwen was nonetheless reporting the deficiency amount to
credit reporting agencies such as Equifax. After Kuns filed for bankruptcy, Ocwen
reported that the deficiency was discharged via the bankruptcy. Kuns alleges that
Ocwen’s reporting of the deficiency, without being accompanied by additional
information to indicate Kuns’ lack of personal liability, violated Ocwen’s
obligation under California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
(“CCRAA”) to not report information that Ocwen “knows or should know . . . is
incomplete or inaccurate.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). The district court
concluded that Ocwen had no “affirmative duty” under the CCRAA to indicate that
the deficiency could not be collected from Kuns, and dismissed the complaint.
The CCRAA does not define what constitutes “incomplete or inaccurate”
reporting. Nevertheless, in interpreting the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
CCRAA’s federal analogue) and other provisions of the CCRAA, we have held
that “an item on a credit report can be ‘incomplete or inaccurate’ . . . because it is
misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely
affect credit decisions.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1163
(9th Cir. 2009)). In general, “similar terms appearing in different sections of a
statute should receive the same interpretation,” and this court also “operate[s]
under the assumption that California courts would interpret the FCRA and CCRAA
consistently.” Carvalho, 629 F.3d at 890. On this basis, we interpret the phrase
“incomplete or inaccurate” in CCRAA § 1785.25(a) as requiring that furnishers of
credit information such as Ocwen not only refrain from making any reports that are
obviously wrong or missing crucial data, but also that the reports not contain
information that is materially misleading.
In light of this discussion, Kuns’s allegation that Ocwen’s reporting was
“incomplete or inaccurate” regarding his personal liability for the foreclosure
deficiency stated a claim under CCRAA § 1785.25. We note that unlike the
company in Wang v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, which faced only the potential of the
debtor raising a statute of limitations defense, Ocwen itself had made an election of
remedies when it sold Kuns’s home in a non-judicial foreclosure, thereby changing

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
the collectibility of the debt. 681 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The anti-
deficiency laws’ protection against post-foreclosure personal liability is complete
and nonwaivable, in contrast to the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations
that the debtor in Wang could raise. See DeBerard Props. v. Lim, 976 P.2d 843
(Cal. 1999) (holding that anti-deficiency laws’ protection is nonwaivable).
Because Kuns’ complaint stated a claim under CCRAA § 1785.25, the district
court should not have granted Ocwen’s motion to dismiss that component of the
complaint.
However, the district court correctly concluded that, after Kuns filed for
bankruptcy and Ocwen reported the deficiency as discharged in the bankruptcy,
this reporting could not have been “incomplete or inaccurate” within the meaning
of CCRAA § 1785.25. There is no allegation that Ocwen did anything other than
accurately report the action taken by the bankruptcy court. Therefore, we AFFIRM
IN PART, REVERSE IN PART, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with
this Memorandum.
Each party shall bear its own costs.

-- 4 of 4 --