Jones v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Wesley Jones sued Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union (of Delaware), LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York’s similar credit-reporting law. He alleged that the defendants reported two disputed credit-account entries, known as tradelines, and failed to correct them. The opinion states that Jones had settled his claims against Equifax and TransUnion.

Experian moved to transfer the action from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Georgia. The opinion states that Jones resides in Georgia, although the complaint itself did not allege his state of domicile. The dispute letters Jones sent to Experian listed a Georgia return address, and other materials connected him to Georgia. Jones sent the letters to Experian’s address in Costa Mesa, California. The complaint alleged that Experian was headquartered in Costa Mesa, California and/or Dublin, Ireland, and that it was registered to do business in New York.

Legal standard

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a civil case to another district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, if the case could have been brought there. The court considered nine factors, including witness and party convenience, the location of documents and evidence, where the events occurred, the ability to compel unwilling witnesses, the parties’ resources, familiarity with the governing law, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and trial efficiency. Experian had to show by clear and convincing evidence that the factors favored transfer.

Court’s analysis

The court first found that the action could have been filed in the Northern District of Georgia. Jones did not dispute that point. The court also rejected his argument that Experian had waived its ability to challenge venue by removing the action from New York state court. The court said that the cases Jones cited did not support his position and that controlling Second Circuit precedent held that removal does not waive venue objections.

The court then found that most of the transfer factors favored Georgia:

- Convenience of witnesses and parties: Jones was in Georgia, and Experian employees were based in California. The court found Georgia more convenient for Jones and no less convenient for Experian. None of the identified nonparty witnesses were based in the Southern District of New York. - Relevant documents: The court found that relevant documents concerning Jones’s claims and damages were in his possession in Georgia. Jones did not identify evidence located in New York. - Location of operative events: The court found that the events underlying the claims occurred in Georgia and California. Jones sent the dispute letters from Georgia, and the opinion states that his alleged emotional distress and reputational harm affected him there. The court found no evidence that a principal event occurred in New York. - Power to compel witnesses: This factor was neutral or slightly favored transfer. Neither party provided evidence that nonparty witnesses would refuse to appear, but some potential witnesses were outside the Southern District of New York’s subpoena power. - Relative resources: This factor was neutral or slightly favored transfer because Georgia was Jones’s home forum and he provided no documentation showing that litigating there would impose an undue financial burden. - Familiarity with the law: This factor was neutral. The court found that both districts were familiar with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It also stated that New York’s law was substantially similar to and interpreted in the same way as the federal law at issue. - Jones’s choice of forum: The court gave Jones’s choice of New York diminished weight because the operative facts, evidence, and witnesses had no meaningful connection to that district. - Trial efficiency and the interests of justice: The case was at an early stage, and the court found that transferring it would not require the receiving court to expend substantial resources becoming familiar with the matter. The court also viewed the choice of New York as arbitrary based on the record before it.

The court separately criticized errors and misquotations in Jones’s opposition. It reminded Jones’s counsel of possible sanctions authority for materially false or misleading court filings, but stated that the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence of the bad faith required for sanctions.

Disposition

The court granted Experian’s motion to transfer. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and transfer the action to the Northern District of Georgia. The opinion did not decide the merits of Jones’s Fair Credit Reporting Act or New York credit-reporting claims.