Driskill v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Travis Driskill alleged that, after he discovered identity theft, his Experian credit file contained eleven Affirm accounts that did not belong to him. Experian removed all but two of the accounts after he disputed them. Driskill reported the alleged fraud and identity theft to the Federal Trade Commission and the Mesa, Arizona Police Department, provided those reports to Affirm, and disputed the accounts with Affirm, Experian, and MRS, a debt collector for Affirm accounts. He alleged that the reporting did not change and that Affirm accessed his credit reports without his permission.

During the same period, Driskill and his now ex-wife entered divorce proceedings in Maricopa County, Arizona. The resulting consent decree allocated to Driskill debts held in his name alone, but the decree did not identify or mention the Affirm debts at issue in this case. Driskill filed this action on January 31, 2024.

Motion to Dismiss

Affirm moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Affirm argued that the Arizona consent decree assigned the disputed debt to Driskill and that the federal court could not decide otherwise without effectively overturning the state-court ruling. Affirm relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate courts over state-court judgments.

The court denied the motion to dismiss. It explained that Driskill sought damages based on Affirm’s alleged failure to reasonably investigate his disputes and correct inaccurate credit reporting. He did not ask the federal court to set aside, change, or reinterpret the Arizona consent decree, reassign the debts to his ex-wife, or find that the Arizona court had acted wrongly. The Arizona court also had not considered Driskill’s disputes about the credit reporting.

The court further concluded that Driskill’s claims were not so closely connected to the consent decree that success on the federal claims would require the court to reverse or void that decree. Affirm had not identified how resolving the credit-reporting claims would affect the Arizona court’s decision. The court therefore held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar Driskill’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims.

Motion to Stay Discovery and Disposition

Affirm also moved to stay discovery until the court resolved the motion to dismiss. Because the court resolved Affirm’s challenge, it denied the motion to stay discovery as moot.

The court denied Affirm’s motions to dismiss and to stay discovery. It also denied as moot Driskill and Affirm’s joint motion for permission to appear virtually at the scheduled hearing, vacated that hearing, and ordered Affirm to file an answer to the complaint within 21 days from the date of the order.