Desmarattes v. Equifax, Transunion, Experian

E.D. New York

Desmarattes v. Equifax, Transunion, Experian

DecidedDecember 7, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-03330

StatusUnknown

This text of Desmarattes v. Equifax, Transunion, Experian (Desmarattes v. Equifax, Transunion, Experian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Desmarattes v. Equifax, Transunion, Experian, (E.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------X

MELINDA DESMARATTES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, 22-CV-3330 (KAM)(TAM) -against-

EQUIFAX, TRANSUNION, and EXPERIAN;

Defendants.

--------------------------------------X KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Melinda Desmarattes (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced the instant action against Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC (“Equifax”), Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”), and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian,” together, “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., as well as defamation. (See ECF No. 1, Ex. A (“Compl.”) at ¶¶9‒16, 20‒22.) Defendant Equifax was subsequently terminated from the action pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal on January 27, 2023. Although Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 40, “TAC”) naming Experian and Trans Union as defendants on March 24, 2023, she subsequently dismissed Defendant Experian on July 20, 2023. Currently before the Court is (1) Defendant Trans Union’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC for failure to state a claim and (2) Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See ECF No. 48, Defendant’s Notice of Motion

for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Def’t Mot.”); ECF No. 50, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Pl. Mot.”).) For the reasons stated below, Defendant Trans Union’s motion is granted and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. BACKGROUND For the purpose of deciding Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the TAC and exhibits attached thereto,1 (see TAC), and draws all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor. See Biro v. Condé Nast, 807 F.3d 541, 544 (2d Cir. 2015). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Santora v. Capio Partners, LLC, 409 F. Supp. 3d 106, 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing Bank of New York v. First Millennium, 607 F.3d 905, 922 (2d Cir. 2010)). Generally, “[i]n adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must confine its consideration to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the

1 “In reviewing a motion to dismiss, we ‘may consider [not only] the facts alleged in the complaint, [but also] documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint.’” Sabir v. Williams, 37 F.4th 810, 814 (2d Cir. 2022) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Leonard F. v. Israel Discount Bank of N.Y., 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 1999)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “When a plaintiff proceeds pro se, however, the Court may consider materials outside the complaint to the extent that they are consistent with the allegations in the complaint,” Scott-Monck v. Matrix Absence Mgmt., Inc., No. 19-cv-11798 (NSR), 2022 WL 2908007, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2022) (internal quotations omitted), including “factual allegations made by a pro se party in [her] papers opposing the motion [to dismiss].” Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 122 n.1 (2d Cir. 2013). I. Factual Background With respect to Trans Union, Plaintiff alleges that she is a “consumer” as defined by the FCRA and that Defendant Trans Union

is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined by the FCRA because it is “engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports.” (TAC at ¶¶5, 7.) Plaintiff alleges that the reporting by Trans Union on Plaintiff included discrepancies with reporting by the subsequently dismissed defendant, Experian, regarding the ”high credit limit, date opened, date last active,” and other data points for various of Plaintiff’s accounts. (Id. at ¶¶19-20.) Plaintiff’s TAC does not allege which of the reported information is inaccurate. Specifically, Plaintiff states that on her September 20,

2022, credit report, regarding an unspecified account, Trans Union reported a “high credit” of “$340” whereas Experian reported “$0,” the date opened for the account was “06/10/2019 in [Trans Union] and 06[/]01/2019 in Experian,” and the last date active was “10/19/2021 in [Trans Union] and 07/01/2022 in Experian.” (Id. at ¶21.) Plaintiff also cites discrepancies in her October 6, 2022, credit report regarding her Merrick Bank account, specifically that the date opened was “11/14/2019” with Trans Union and “11/01/2019” with Experian, that the high credit as “$1,509” with Trans Union and “$0” with Experian, and that the date last active was “08/31/2022” with Trans Union and “10/01/2022” with Experian. (Id. at ¶¶19, 22, p. 26.) Finally, Plaintiff cites discrepancies

in her July 8, 2022, credit report regarding her First National Credit account, specifically that the balance, high credit, and past due amount “reported by [Trans Union] was $427 [and by] Experian was $0,” that payment status was reported as “Collection/Charge Off by [Trans Union] and Unknown by Experian,” and that the last date active and date opened for the account differed between Trans Union and Experian. (Id. at ¶¶19, 24, p. 28.) Plaintiff also states that Trans Union failed to reflect payments made by her to First National Credit. (Id. at ¶44, p. 28.) Plaintiff further alleges that two incorrect addresses were

listed on her credit report, and that the date last active for her Citibank account was reported “differently . . . for the same account” by Trans Union and Experian. (Id. at ¶¶25-26.) Plaintiff alleges that she sent a dispute letter to Trans Union and Experian on March 3, 2022, alerting them to “inaccurate and/or incomplete information concerning [her] in consumer reports.” (Id. at ¶17, pp. 23-24.) Plaintiff’s alleged letter specifically points to the two “incorrect addresses” that “need to be removed” and then cites five “tradelines” that are “inaccurate because [she is] not legally obligated to pay for the alleged deficiency claim” and are also “reported inaccurately.” (Id. at pp 23-24.) Plaintiff does not specify exactly what is reported inaccurately in either letter. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Trans Union violated the FCRA by: (1) “fail[ing] to maintain and/or follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information it reported . . . in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)”; (2) “failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information was inaccurate and to subsequently delete the information” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1); (3) failing to send to the furnishe[r]s all relevant information that it received in Plaintiff's dispute letters” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI