Calamia v. Equifax Information Services LLC

Background

Self-represented plaintiff Shane Calamia sued Equifax Information Services LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer credit reporting. He challenged six accounts listed on his Equifax credit report: a Midland Credit Management account; three PremierOne Credit Union accounts; a Discover Bank account; and a JPMCB Card Services account. He alleged that the accounts contained inaccurate, inconsistent, or materially misleading information about account status, balances, payment history, and reporting. He also alleged that he sent written disputes to Equifax and that Equifax responded through automated processing without conducting a substantive or independent investigation.

Calamia asserted four causes of action: failure to reasonably reinvestigate disputed information under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i; failure to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under § 1681e(b); willful noncompliance under § 1681n; and negligent noncompliance under § 1681o. Equifax moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which respectively address subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Equifax also moved to stay discovery while the dismissal motion was pending.

Standing

The court rejected Equifax’s argument that Calamia lacked standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete, particularized injury that a federal court can address. The court relied on an attached letter from Citibank/Citigroup denying Calamia’s application for a credit card. The letter attributed the decision to delinquent credit obligations recorded on his credit-bureau report and stated that the decision was based in whole or in part on information from Equifax. The court held that this was sufficient to establish standing.

Motion to Dismiss

The court held that Calamia had not sufficiently alleged how the challenged account information was actually inaccurate or materially misleading. Although credit reporting can be actionable when technically accurate information is presented in a materially misleading way, the complaint needed facts explaining the alleged inaccuracies or misleading nature of the reporting. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the first and second causes of action, which concerned Sections 1681i and 1681e(b), with leave to amend.

The court separately held that Calamia had not alleged facts explaining why Equifax’s ordinary procedures for initially reporting the accounts were unreasonable, so the Section 1681e(b) claim was dismissed with leave to amend. As to Section 1681i, the court found that allegations that Equifax relied primarily on automated dispute processing, failed to conduct a substantive or independent investigation, failed to obtain or review sufficient documentation, and continued reporting the accounts as verified were sufficient at the pleading stage. But the Section 1681i claim still lacked sufficient allegations identifying the underlying inaccuracies described above.

The court dismissed the Sections 1681o and 1681n claims because Calamia had not adequately pleaded an underlying Fair Credit Reporting Act violation. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Section 1681n willfulness claim with leave to amend and also required additional allegations for the Section 1681n and Section 1681e(b) claims. The opinion’s conclusion states that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend.

Motion to Stay Discovery

The court denied Equifax’s request to pause discovery. It explained that the mere filing of a non-frivolous dismissal motion ordinarily does not justify a blanket stay. The parties had already held their required conference, the dismissal motion had been resolved, and the court had rejected Equifax’s only jurisdictional argument—the standing challenge. The court therefore found no good cause for a stay.

Amendment Instructions and Disposition

The court gave Calamia until September 15, 2026, to amend his complaint. It directed him, if supported by a good-faith basis, to provide more detail about the alleged misleading information for five accounts; explain why the Midland account was not legally enforceable or was disputed; identify Equifax’s reporting procedures and explain why they were unreasonable; and allege how Equifax acted knowingly or recklessly for the willfulness claim.

The court granted in part and denied in part Equifax’s motion to dismiss and denied Equifax’s motion to stay discovery. Because the order included a partial Rule 12 dismissal rather than deciding all claims on their merits, the classification is procedural_order.