Williams v. Equifax Credit Bureau
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:20-cv-04870
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Williams v. Equifax Credit Bureau, Judge Hixson found a possible credit-reporting claim and ordered service of the second amended complaint.
Jacqueline Williams and the credit-reporting-agency defendants—Equifax Credit Bureau, Experian, and TransUnion—were affected; the case was allowed to proceed past initial screening and service was ordered.
What happened
Jacqueline Williams sued Equifax Credit Bureau and other credit-reporting agencies, alleging inaccurate credit information, harm to her credit, failure to provide her credit report, and discrimination. After earlier complaints failed to clearly state a claim, Williams filed a second amended complaint.
The court screened that complaint under the law governing lawsuits filed without paying filing fees. It found that, read broadly, Williams alleged the agencies reported inaccurate information and failed to reasonably investigate disputes, which could support a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The court therefore found the complaint was not frivolous and directed the clerk or U.S. Marshal to serve it on the defendants without requiring advance payment of fees. Judge Hixson also continued the case and ordered a joint case-management statement.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Equifax Credit Bureau · No. 3:20-cv-04870
- Thomas Hixson
- Sept. 25, 2020
Background
Williams filed this civil action against Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Her earlier complaint referred to civil-rights, negligence, bank-fraud, mail-fraud, and credit-report allegations, but the court found that it did not clearly identify a legal claim or connect specific facts to the defendants. The court also found that her first amended complaint did not correct those problems and directed her to file another amended complaint identifying each claim, the law or right involved, and the supporting facts.
In her second amended complaint, Williams alleged that the defendants violated her contract and failed to protect her personal information. She also alleged that they provided negative or inaccurate credit information, lowered her credit score, charged fees for credit monitoring, refused to mail her a copy of her credit report when requested around January 2020, and discriminated against her based on race and sex. Williams appeared without a lawyer.
Screening analysis
Because Williams applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint. That review required dismissal if the complaint was frivolous, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, while still requiring a factual and legal basis for the alleged wrong.
The court found that the second amended complaint stated a factual and legal basis for at least one claim. Liberally construed, Williams alleged that the credit-reporting agencies supplied inaccurate information in her credit report and failed to conduct reasonable investigations to correct it. The court identified the Fair Credit Reporting Act as imposing duties on credit-reporting agencies to reasonably reinvestigate disputed information and to use reasonable procedures aimed at ensuring the maximum possible accuracy of consumer information. The court found the complaint was not frivolous.
Order and effect
The court directed the clerk to issue summonses and directed the clerk’s office or the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint, amendments or attachments, Williams’s affidavit, and the order on the defendants without prepayment of fees. The court continued the case to allow time for service and responses and ordered the parties to file a joint case-management statement by December 3, 2020. The order did not decide whether Williams would ultimately prevail on her claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.