MAZARA v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedAugust 6, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-09778
StatusUnknown

This text of MAZARA v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. (MAZARA v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MAZARA v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., (D.N.J. 2025).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ANDREA MAZARA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:24-cv-09778 (BRM) (AME) EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION OPINION LLC, and NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendants. MARTINOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s (“Shellpoint”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) Plaintiff Andrea Mazara’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF No. 1), filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed an Opposition (ECF No. 29), and Shellpoint filed a Reply (ECF No. 30). Having reviewed and considered the submissions filed in connection with the Motion and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause having been shown, Shellpoint’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background For the purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court also considers any “document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.” In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Shaw v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996)). In or around September 2006, Plaintiff obtained a mortgage for her property located at 82 Grand Avenue, Apt. 1, Newark, New Jersey 07106. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) On July 4, 2019, Plaintiff

filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy (id. ¶ 11), and, on August 14, 2020, Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 payment plan was confirmed (id. ¶ 12). Sometime thereafter in 2020, Shellpoint acquired the mortgage loan as a new servicer. (Id. ¶ 13.) On January 17, 2022, Gregory Funding, another mortgage servicer, acquired the loan from Shellpoint (the “Shellpoint Mortgage”). (Id. ¶ 14.) On June 20, 2022, the Trustee for Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed a Chapter 13 Standing Trustee’s Final Report and Account (id. ¶ 15), and, on July 21, 2022, Plaintiff was discharged from her Chapter 13 bankruptcy with the mortgage previously serviced by Shellpoint excepted from the discharge (id. ¶ 16). While Shellpoint is not the current mortgage servicer, Plaintiff still resides in the home and makes timely and regular mortgage payments to the applicable mortgage servicer. (Id. ¶ 19.)

At some point in February 2024, Plaintiff obtained her three-bureau credit report and asserts the Experian and Trans Union credit report(s) were not accurate.1 (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff claims the Experian credit report improperly reported the Shellpoint mortgage account, arguing the report incorrectly indicated that “this secured debt was no longer part of the bankruptcy, as derogatory, as being in a wage earner plan and with references to the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy,” despite her having complied with the terms of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy and the mortgage being excepted.

1 Defendants Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”) and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), were originally named in the Complaint, but the claims against each defendant were settled. (ECF Nos. 8, 14.) Both companies were subsequently and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 32, 35.) (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff states “any remarks and/or references to Plaintiff’s [C]hapter 13 bankruptcy should have been removed from the NewRez-Shellpoint Mortgage tradelines after the Bankruptcy was discharged.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims the Trans Union credit report also incorrectly reported the Shellpoint mortgage account as it indicated that “this secured debt was no longer part of the bankruptcy, as derogatory, as open when the account was closed and transferred, and as being in

a wage earner plan and with references to the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy,” despite her having complied with the terms of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy and the mortgage being excepted. (Id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff similarly asserts “any remarks and/or references to Plaintiff’s [C]hapter 13 bankruptcy should have been removed from the NewRez-Shellpoint Mortgage tradelines after the Bankruptcy was discharged.” (Id.) In or around June 2024, Plaintiff sent direct disputes to Experian and Trans Union, requesting, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), that these consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) conduct a reasonable investigation into the alleged inaccurate reporting of the Shellpoint Mortgage. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff also requested the CRAs remedy the inaccuracies on her credit

reports. (Id.) Upon Plaintiff’s information and belief, Experian did not respond to the dispute. (Id. ¶ 27.) On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff obtained an updated copy of her three-bureau credit report. (Id. ¶ 28.) As to the Experian credit report, she noticed the Shellpoint tradeline continued to denote the same inaccuracies previously disputed. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts the responses, or lack thereof, by Experian “were not the result of a reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s dispute(s) and failed to remedy the inaccuracies . . . and gave no explanation as to why it failed to sufficiently update the []Shellpoint tradeline . . . because it was still open following the bankruptcy discharge.” (Id. ¶ 29.) As a possible theory for the continued alleged misreport, Plaintiff alleges Experian forwarded some notice of the dispute to Shellpoint, but the lack of updated reporting was due to Shellpoint failing to conduct a lawful investigation. (Id. ¶ 35.) As to the Trans Union Credit report, the Shellpoint tradeline was missing and was “presumably deleted rather than modified to closed without an bankruptcy indicators.” (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiff asserts the responses, or lack thereof, by Trans Union “were not the result of a reasonable

investigation into Plaintiff’s dispute(s) and failed to remedy the inaccuracies . . . and gave no explanation as to why it failed to sufficiently update the []Shellpoint tradeline . . . because it was still open following the bankruptcy discharge.” (Id. ¶ 38.) As a possible theory for the continued alleged misreport, Plaintiff similarly alleges Trans Union forwarded some notice of the dispute to Shellpoint, but the lack of updated reporting was due to Shellpoint failing to conduct a lawful investigation. (Id. ¶ 43.) On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Shellpoint alleging violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). (Id. ¶¶ 72–75). Plaintiff alleges Shellpoint violated the FCRA “by failing to conduct reasonable investigations upon receiving notice of Plaintiff’s dispute(s) from

one or more consumer reporting agencies, and/or failing to appropriately report the results of their investigations, and/or failing to appropriately modify the information.” (Id. ¶ 72.) B. Procedural History On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On January 3, 2025, Shellpoint filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 22.) On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. (ECF No. 29.) On February 11, 2025, Shellpoint filed a Reply in further support of its Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30.) On March 6, 2025, Shellpoint filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF No.

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

Related

Papasan v. Allain
478 U.S. 265 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.
82 F.3d 1194 (First Circuit, 1996)
Simmsparris v. Countrywide Financial Corp.
652 F.3d 355 (Third Circuit, 2011)
Phillips v. County of Allegheny
515 F.3d 224 (Third Circuit, 2008)
Gibbs v. SLM Corp.
336 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Massachusetts, 2004)
Edward Seamans v. Temple University
744 F.3d 853 (Third Circuit, 2014)
Alvin v. Suzuki
227 F.3d 107 (Third Circuit, 2000)
Van Veen v. Equifax Information
844 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MAZARA v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazara-v-experian-information-solutions-inc-njd-2025.