Inozemtsev v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.
Vitaly Inozemtsev v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., Equifax Information Services LLC and Trans Union LLC
- Torres
- 1:26-cv-04418
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vitaly Inozemtsev v. Experian, Judge Torres held venue proper in Florida and transferred the Fair Credit Reporting Act case there.
Vitaly Inozemtsev and Experian Information Solutions Inc., Equifax Information Services LLC, and Trans Union LLC; the action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
What happened
In Vitaly Inozemtsev v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., Vitaly Inozemtsev sued Experian Information Solutions Inc., Equifax Information Services LLC, and Trans Union LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court had questioned whether the case belonged in the Southern District of New York and asked Inozemtsev to explain where venue was proper.
Inozemtsev asked to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida, saying that important events occurred there and that he currently lived there. Although the defendants argued that Florida was not the proper venue, the court concluded that venue was proper there because the claim arose where the alleged harm occurred. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of Florida rather than dismissed.
Judge Analisa Torres issued the transfer order on July 15, 2026. The order addressed venue and transfer only; it did not decide the underlying Fair Credit Reporting Act claims.
The detailed version
- Inozemtsev v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. · No. 1:26-cv-04418
- Torres
- July 15, 2026
Background
The court had previously ordered Vitaly Inozemtsev to show why venue was proper in the Southern District of New York. The court said that, if he could not show proper venue, it would transfer the case to another suitable district.
Inozemtsev then stated that he consented to transfer to the Southern District of Florida. In a later order, the court said venue did not appear proper in Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and asked him to explain why the case should not instead be transferred to a district in California, Georgia, or Illinois, where he claimed the defendant corporations were headquartered.
Parties’ Positions
In a June 29, 2026 letter, Inozemtsev continued to request transfer to the Southern District of Florida. He stated that a substantial part of the events underlying his claims occurred there and that he currently resided there. The defendants argued that venue was not proper in the Southern District of Florida.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that, in actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the claim arises where the harm occurred. Based on that rule, the court concluded that venue was proper in the Southern District of Florida.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court determined that transferring the case, rather than dismissing it, was in the interests of justice. The opinion did not decide the merits of Inozemtsev’s claims against the defendants.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.