Nadeau v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Maggie Nadeau brought a one-count claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that Experian reported inaccurate information on her credit report and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice of her dispute. Nadeau later filed an amended complaint. Experian answered and asserted ten affirmative defenses, which are defenses that seek to defeat or limit a claim even if the complaint’s allegations are assumed to be true.

Nadeau filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike five of Experian’s responses to the amended complaint, deem certain answers admitted, and strike six of Experian’s affirmative defenses. The opinion’s footnote also states that Nadeau sought to strike the third through ninth affirmative defenses, including the eighth defense, but gave no specific legal or factual basis for striking the eighth.

Responses About the Bankruptcy Allegations

Nadeau challenged Experian’s responses to paragraphs 12 and 14, which alleged that she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and later received a bankruptcy discharge. Experian responded that it lacked sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about those allegations and therefore denied them.

Rule 8(b)(5) permits a party to state that it lacks sufficient knowledge or information, and that statement operates as a denial. But the court explained that a party generally may not use that response when the facts are within its knowledge, are easily brought within its knowledge, are generally known, or are matters of public record. The court found that the bankruptcy allegations involved basic public-record facts and that Experian could verify them without an exhaustive or burdensome search.

The court therefore granted the motion as to paragraphs 12 and 14 to the extent it found Experian’s responses insufficient. It ordered Experian to replead those responses in compliance with Rule 8(b). The court did not order that the allegations be deemed admitted.

Responses About Credit-Report Information

Nadeau also challenged Experian’s denials of paragraphs 40, 41, and 44. Those allegations concerned account history reported for an auto loan and a credit-card account, including changes that Nadeau alleged Experian made after her dispute.

Rule 8(b)(2) requires a denial to fairly respond to the substance of an allegation. The court considered the pleadings and the parties’ explanations of the factual and legal dispute, and found that Experian had fairly and adequately responded to paragraphs 40, 41, and 44. The court denied Nadeau’s motion as to those responses.

Affirmative Defenses

Nadeau argued that Experian’s fourth defense, failure to mitigate damages, and seventh defense, unclean hands, were legally insufficient. The court rejected that argument because Nadeau had not identified controlling law barring those defenses. The court also noted that another court in the district had allowed those defenses to survive a motion to strike in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case. The court denied the motion as to the fourth and seventh defenses.

Nadeau argued that Experian’s third defense, indemnification; fifth defense, contributory or comparative fault; sixth defense, estoppel; and ninth defense, intervening causes, lacked factual support and would force her to conduct unnecessary discovery. The court declined to apply heightened pleading standards to those defenses because neither party was advocating for that approach. It also found that Nadeau had not shown enough prejudice or confusion to justify striking the defenses at that stage. The court denied the motion as to the third, fifth, sixth, and ninth defenses.

The court summarily denied the challenge to the eighth defense, concerning reasonable procedures, because Nadeau did not provide a specific legal or factual basis for striking it.

Order

Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Nadeau’s Rule 12(f) motion to strike affirmative defenses and deem insufficient answers admitted was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Experian’s responses to paragraphs 12 and 14 were deemed insufficient, and Experian was ordered to replead them. The challenges to the responses to paragraphs 40, 41, and 44 and to affirmative defenses three through nine were denied. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorney fees and expenses.