Cupp v. Lexisnexis Solutions
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-00833
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Cupp v. Lexisnexis Solutions, Judge Donato dismissed Ronald Cupp’s complaint without prejudice as to Early Warning Services for missed deadlines.
Ronald Cupp’s claims against Early Warning Services, LLC were dismissed without prejudice; the order does not state the disposition of claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Cupp v. Lexisnexis Solutions, Ronald Cupp, representing himself, sued consumer reporting agencies over allegedly inaccurate information about a bankruptcy proceeding involving him.
Early Warning Services, LLC asked the court to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim. Cupp did not respond by the deadline, even though he acknowledged the pending motion in a later filing.
Judge Donato dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to Early Warning Services under Rule 41(b) because Cupp failed to follow court-ordered deadlines. The order does not decide the claims’ merits or state what happened to the claims against the other defendants.
The detailed version
- Cupp v. Lexisnexis Solutions · No. 3:24-cv-00833
- James Donato
- Feb. 26, 2025
Background
Ronald Cupp, a pro se plaintiff, sued several consumer reporting agencies, alleging that they reported inaccurate information about a bankruptcy proceeding involving him. Early Warning Services, LLC (EWS) moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Failure to Respond
Cupp’s opposition to EWS’s motion was due May 13, 2024. He did not file an opposition. The court noted that Cupp later filed two case-management statements and acknowledged EWS’s pending motion in one of them. The court also noted that Cupp had opposed a different defendant’s motion to dismiss the day after EWS filed its motion.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to EWS under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines. The order does not rule on the merits of Cupp’s claims and does not state the disposition of claims against the other defendants.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.