King v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Background

Aaron King, representing himself, sued four consumer-reporting agencies: Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union, LLC. He alleged that his consumer and credit information had been associated with information belonging to other men with the same name. He also alleged that LexisNexis included addresses not associated with him in a consumer-file disclosure and refused to provide a requested disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g.

Earlier in the case, the court dismissed all claims against Equifax, Experian, and LexisNexis. The court later denied King’s request to file another amended complaint as to those defendants, finding that the proposed claims were futile. The court allowed amendment only to the extent King had plausible claims against Trans Union. King then filed a third amended complaint against Trans Union alone, which was the operative complaint when LexisNexis filed this motion.

Rule 54(b) Motion

LexisNexis moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for entry of judgment in its favor. Rule 54(b) permits a court to enter final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties when an action involves multiple claims or parties and the court expressly finds no just reason to delay.

The court first asked whether there was already, in substance, a final judgment concerning LexisNexis. It concluded that there was because one earlier order dismissed the first amended complaint against LexisNexis, and another denied proposed amendments concerning LexisNexis after finding the reasserted and newly asserted claims futile. The court agreed that the judgment against LexisNexis had become final between those earlier rulings, even though formal judgment had not yet been entered.

The court next considered whether there was a just reason to delay formal judgment. LexisNexis argued that its consumer reports were prepared independently from those of the other defendants and that the claims against it therefore did not share a common set of operative facts with the remaining claims. King argued that the defendants’ alleged reporting of information about another Aaron King created a factual connection.

The court rejected King’s argument. It stated that King had not alleged that the other defendants relied on information from LexisNexis, and that earlier orders had already found related allegations and proposed amendments futile. The court also noted that the surviving claims concerned Trans Union’s reporting, including reporting allegedly connected to cancellation of King’s MetLife insurance policy, and that King had not alleged MetLife relied on LexisNexis’s reporting.

The court further found no inequity in entering judgment. It stated that King had received several opportunities to plead plausible claims and that the claims surviving the prior proceedings did not involve LexisNexis.

Disposition

The court granted LexisNexis’s motion for entry of judgment. The order does not state that the judgment was entered with or without prejudice. The court also treated much of King’s opposition as what appeared to be a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) and denied that request as unpersuasive. Claims against Trans Union remained in the action.