Latorre v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Noel V. Latorre sued American Express Company, Synchrony Bank, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax Information Services, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He alleged that American Express and Synchrony inaccurately scheduled monthly payment amounts on credit information prepared by Experian and Equifax. According to the complaint, the accounts were closed, Latorre no longer had an obligation to make monthly payments, and the accounts therefore should have shown a monthly payment amount of $0.00.

Latorre alleged that the inaccurate reporting reduced his opportunities for credit and employment and caused credit and emotional harm, including stress, anxiety, headaches, nausea, and anger.

Standing concern

Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and personal injury, that the injury was fairly caused by the defendant's conduct, and that a court decision could likely remedy it. The court explained that a statutory violation alone does not establish a concrete injury.

After reviewing the complaint, the court stated that Latorre appeared not to have plausibly alleged a concrete injury. The court found his claims about reduced credit and employment opportunities conclusory and speculative because he did not explain how those opportunities were reduced and did not allege that the disputed information was disseminated to third-party creditors or employers. The court also stated that allegations of possible future injury were insufficient without more facts. Although physical and emotional harms can support standing, the court said Latorre had not alleged enough facts to make those injuries plausible. The court further criticized the complaint for grouping all defendants together without connecting each defendant's conduct to the alleged harm.

Order and next steps

The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Latorre to respond in writing within five business days and explain either what concrete harm he suffered and where the complaint alleged it, or what legal authority supported standing for the claims and relief as pleaded. The defendants could respond within seven days after Latorre's response.

Alternatively, Latorre could notify the court within five business days that he wanted to amend his complaint. The court stated that any amendment should be filed within 21 days after the notice, with the defendants' response due 21 days later. The court also reminded counsel of their obligations under Rule 11 and required the parties to meet and confer before filing any motion to dismiss.

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It warned that failing to respond on time would be treated as a concession that Latorre lacks standing, after which the case would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. The court also noted, without deciding the issue in this order, that the complaint's allegation that the accounts were closed was conclusory and related to a pending motion to dismiss.