Latorre v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

This was the court’s second order requiring Noel V. Latorre to show why his case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, meaning the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a concrete, legally sufficient injury that the defendant caused and that a court can remedy. The court had previously identified standing problems. Instead of responding substantively to the first order, Latorre filed a notice of intent to amend and then filed a First Amended Complaint.

Latorre alleged that American Express Company and Synchrony Bank inaccurately reported monthly payment amounts on credit information prepared by Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC. He alleged that the accounts were closed, his obligation to make monthly payments had ended, and the reports therefore should have shown monthly payment amounts of $0.00.

Standing Analysis

The court explained that Latorre had to show an injury in fact that was particularized and concrete, that the injury was fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct, and that a favorable decision was likely to redress it. The court said standing must be shown for each claim and each form of relief.

Latorre alleged that the inaccurate reporting reduced his opportunities for credit and employment and prevented him from obtaining credit or better credit terms. He also alleged credit and emotional harms, including stress, anxiety, headaches, loss of sleep, nausea, anger, and arguments with his spouse.

The court concluded that these allegations appeared conclusory and speculative. Latorre did not explain how the specific defendants’ conduct caused his alleged inability to obtain credit or favorable terms, and he did not allege that the information had been shared with creditors or employers. The court also stated that possible future injury was insufficient unless Latorre alleged a separate concrete harm resulting from the risk of future injury.

The court recognized that physical and emotional harm can sometimes support standing, but said Latorre had not alleged enough facts to make his claimed injuries plausible. It was not clear that arguments with his spouse constituted concrete harm or that those arguments were plausibly connected to any particular defendant’s conduct. The court also criticized the complaint for grouping the defendants together without distinguishing their alleged actions.

Order

The court ordered Latorre to respond within five business days. His response could not exceed six pages and had to identify his concrete harm, explain where the First Amended Complaint alleged that harm for each claim, and provide legal authority or another basis for standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as pleaded. The defendants could respond within five business days after Latorre’s response, with their responses limited to four pages.

Alternatively, Latorre could request voluntary dismissal within five business days and state that he wished to continue the suit in state court. The court stayed Equifax’s motion to dismiss and vacated the hearing on that motion pending resolution of the standing issue. The court stated that a failure to respond timely would be treated as a concession that Latorre lacked standing and that the case would then be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. The court also reminded counsel of their obligations under Rule 11. This order itself required a response and did not state that the case had already been dismissed.