Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 10, 2025

Berry v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:24-cv-03143
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

Berry v. TransUnion: Judge Clarke dismissed the case with prejudice after Berry did not amend her complaint by the court’s deadline.

Who this affects

Patricia Ann Berry and TransUnion LLC; the other defendants had already been terminated from the action.

What happened

In Berry v. TransUnion, LLC, Patricia Ann Berry sued several defendants, but the other defendants were voluntarily dismissed, leaving TransUnion as the only remaining defendant. Berry represented herself.

The court had granted TransUnion’s motion to dismiss and allowed Berry to file an amended complaint by March 1, 2025. Berry did not file an amended complaint or otherwise tell the court that she intended to continue the case.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action with prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Berry v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03143
Judge
Clarke
Date
Mar. 10, 2025

Background

Patricia Ann Berry filed this action without a lawyer. The opinion states that she initially named Continental Finance Company LLC, Equifax Information Services LLC, Merrick Bank Corporation, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion LLC as defendants. Berry voluntarily dismissed Continental with prejudice, voluntarily dismissed Equifax, and filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal concerning Merrick. The court later entered a stipulation voluntarily dismissing Experian. TransUnion was the sole remaining defendant.

Prior ruling and deadline

TransUnion moved to dismiss Berry’s complaint. The court granted that motion on January 22, 2025, and gave Berry permission to amend her complaint. The court stated that the action would be dismissed with prejudice if she did not file an amended complaint by March 1, 2025.

Ruling

Berry did not file an amended complaint by the deadline and did not otherwise indicate that she intended to pursue the action. The court concluded that dismissal with prejudice was proper because Berry had received notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend but did not do so. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke dismissed the action with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, and ordered the case closed.

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.