Hintermaier v. Equifax Information Services, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-09697
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hintermaier v. Equifax, Judge Carter adopted the recommendation and denied Hintermaier’s three motions as moot and without prejudice.
Mirela Hintermaier and defendants Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and TransUnion, LLC; the order resolves Hintermaier’s three motions to strike but does not address the underlying claims.
What happened
In Hintermaier v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Mirela Hintermaier asked the court to strike Experian’s defenses and Equifax’s and TransUnion’s answers. She later filed an amended complaint.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the motions as moot because of the amended complaint, while allowing Hintermaier to file new motions addressing the defendants’ expected answers to that complaint. No one objected by the deadline.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court denied the three motions as moot and without prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate them.
The detailed version
- Hintermaier v. Equifax Information Services, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09697
- Andrew Carter
- June 5, 2025
Background
Mirela Hintermaier filed three motions to strike parts of the defendants’ pleadings: one motion targeting affirmative defenses asserted by Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and two motions targeting answers submitted by Equifax Information Services, LLC and TransUnion, LLC. Hintermaier then filed an amended complaint.
Report and recommendation
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky recommended that the motions be denied as moot because the amended complaint had been filed. The recommendation stated that the denials would be without prejudice to Hintermaier filing motions to strike the defendants’ anticipated answers to the amended complaint.
The parties were notified that they could object to the recommendation, but no objections were filed by the May 12, 2025 deadline. When no timely objection is made, the district court may adopt the recommendation if the record does not show clear error.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. found no clear error and adopted Judge Tarnofsky’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Hintermaier’s motions at ECF Nos. 23, 47, and 48 as moot and without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate those pending motions. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the amended complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.