Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 20, 2025

McAdoo v. Equifax Information Services LLC

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:24-cv-09886
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureConsumer Credit
In one sentence

In McAdoo v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Judge Karas granted deadlines requiring a complaint by April 30 and Equifax’s response within 14 days.

Who this affects

Lisa McAdoo and Equifax Information Services LLC; the order requires McAdoo to file a complaint by April 30, 2025, and requires Equifax to answer or otherwise respond within 14 days after the complaint is filed.

What happened

McAdoo v. Equifax Information Services LLC concerns Lisa McAdoo’s claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York law. The case was removed from state court before McAdoo filed a complaint; only a summons and notice had been filed.

Equifax asked the court, with McAdoo’s consent, to require her to file the complaint by April 30, 2025. Equifax also asked for 14 days after the complaint was filed to answer or otherwise respond, while the parties continued settlement discussions.

The court granted the request. The order set those deadlines and did not decide the underlying claims. Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McAdoo v. Equifax Information Services LLC · No. 7:24-cv-09886
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Feb. 20, 2025

Background

Lisa McAdoo brought claims alleging that Equifax violated sections 1681e(b) and 1681i of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act. The letter states that the matter began in state court and was removed to federal court on December 23, 2024, based on an allegation that Equifax published consumer reports to third parties. The letter identifies the defendant as Equifax Information Services LLC and states that it was erroneously identified as Equifax Inc. in the action.

Before removal, McAdoo had filed only a summons and notice, not a formal complaint. Equifax had previously received additional time to investigate and respond, but its counsel later recognized that there was no complaint to answer. The parties had also engaged in settlement discussions.

Request and ruling

With McAdoo’s consent, Equifax asked the court to set April 30, 2025, as the deadline for McAdoo to file her complaint and to allow Equifax 14 days after filing to answer or otherwise respond. The letter stated that the request would not affect other scheduled dates.

The court granted the request and stated, “SO ORDERED.” The order did not address whether McAdoo’s Fair Credit Reporting Act or New York-law claims were legally valid, and it did not resolve the parties’ settlement discussions. The ruling was a case-management order setting pleading deadlines.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.