that, as a matter of law, reporting historically accurate balances during the pendency of a bankruptcy can not be inaccurate or incomplete under the FCRA. Mot. at 8-9. However, courts in this district have found that reporting delinquent payments during bankruptcy may be misleading depending on the circumstances, including whether the report fails to indicate that a charge is disputed or part of a. bankruptcy. See Mortimer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 WL 1501452, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (finding that reporting delinquencies during the pen-dency of bankruptcy is not misleading so long as the creditor reports that the account was discharged through bankruptcy and the outstanding balance is zero); Venugopal v. Digital Fed. Credit Union, 2013 WL 1283436, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 27, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court turns to Plaintiffs
holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred  is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt holding that reporting a consumers debt to a creditreporting agency constitutes collection of the debt under  1692gb holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute holding that a bail bond surety debt was not an allowable debt in bankruptcy because it is a penalty