Edunjobi v. Equifax Information Services LLC
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-01082
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 1
In Edunjobi v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Judge Menendez dismissed the case without prejudice because plaintiff Raquelle Edunjobi failed to pursue her lawsuit.
Individuals who have filed or are considering filing lawsuits against credit reporting agencies and may be at risk of having their cases dismissed if they do not actively pursue them in court.
What happened
In Edunjobi v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 25-cv-1082, plaintiff Raquelle Edunjobi sued three major credit reporting companies — Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian, and Transunion — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Edunjobi appeared to no longer wish to pursue the case, based on her failure to take steps to move it forward.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued the Report and Recommendation on July 10, 2025, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Edunjobi could potentially refile — due to her failure to prosecute the action. Because Edunjobi did not file any objections to that recommendation, the district court reviewed it only for clear error.
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which allows a court to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to pursue it. The dismissal without prejudice means the door is not permanently closed on refiling, though the opinion does not address any conditions for doing so.
The detailed version
- Edunjobi v. Equifax Information Services LLC · No. 0:25-cv-01082
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Raquelle Edunjobi filed suit against three credit reporting agencies — Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian, and Transunion — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
On July 10, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) concluding that Edunjobi no longer wished to pursue the case, citing her failure to prosecute — that is, her failure to take the steps necessary to move the litigation forward. Judge Foster recommended dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute her case.
Standard of Review
Because Edunjobi did not file objections to the R&R, the district court applied a clear-error standard of review, meaning it would accept the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations unless they contained an obvious mistake. The court cited Nur v. Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021), and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) as authority for this standard.
Ruling
Judge Menendez accepted the R&R in full, finding no clear error. The court ordered the action dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling, though the opinion imposes no conditions and makes no further comment on future filings.
Note on Underlying Claims
The opinion does not describe the nature of Edunjobi's claims against the credit reporting agencies, the procedural history leading to the failure-to-prosecute finding, or what specific conduct (or inaction) prompted the magistrate judge's recommendation. Readers seeking that information would need to consult the R&R itself (Dkt. No. 8) or other docket entries.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.