Lopez v. Equifax, Inc.

Background

Luther Lopez, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and state law. He alleged that he was denied membership at Andrews Credit Union because ChexSystems provided incorrect or fraudulent information. He further alleged that, after he disputed the information, ChexSystems did not remove it, did not reasonably reinvestigate it, did not use reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, and continued distributing it to third parties. Lopez sought damages and an order temporarily removing the disputed account or information.

Lopez originally named Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC. He later filed an amended complaint adding ChexSystems, Inc., and then asked to voluntarily dismiss all claims against the two Equifax defendants.

Rulings on the Defendants

The court granted Lopez’s request to voluntarily dismiss all claims against Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The clerk was directed to terminate those defendants and amend the case caption. ChexSystems remains the sole defendant.

FCRA Claims

The court treated Lopez’s allegations as potentially involving two FCRA duties imposed on consumer reporting agencies: the duty to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of reported information, and the duty to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation after a consumer disputes information.

The court concluded that the allegations were insufficient to state those claims because Lopez did not identify the specific information on his consumer report that was inaccurate or explain why it was inaccurate. The court therefore granted Lopez leave to file an amended complaint with facts identifying the allegedly inaccurate information and explaining the basis for his claim that ChexSystems failed to use reasonable accuracy procedures. The order did not enter a final dismissal of the ChexSystems claims; it allowed Lopez an opportunity to amend.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

The court said it was unclear whether Lopez intended to assert state-law claims against ChexSystems. Because the court was allowing him to replead federal claims, it declined to address the merits of any state-law claims at that stage. The court also explained that the allegations did not establish diversity jurisdiction: although Lopez alleged that he was a New York citizen and ChexSystems was incorporated in Minnesota, he did not state ChexSystems’ principal place of business or the amount of damages sought. The court reserved the question whether it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims later.

Leave to Amend and Further Instructions

The court granted Lopez 60 days to file an amended complaint. The new complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint, so Lopez must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. The court instructed him to provide facts about the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief, and to explain what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do. No summons would issue at that time.

If Lopez failed to comply within the deadline and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.