Hernandez-Diaz v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Luis Hernandez-Diaz brought this Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case was removed from Hennepin County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Hernandez-Diaz alleged that Experian, a consumer reporting agency, prepared and issued consumer reports containing false and inaccurate information that harmed his credit score. He alleged that he notified Experian of the inaccuracies by certified mail on June 22, 2021, November 17, 2021, and March 23, 2022, but that Experian did not respond or delete the information. He also alleged that unnamed potential lenders reviewed the information and that he suffered emotional and health-related harms. He sought compensatory and statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

Experian’s Motion

Experian moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), or alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56. Hernandez-Diaz filed no response to the motion, and his lawyer did not appear at the hearing. Hernandez-Diaz also did not respond to Experian’s requests for admissions or other written discovery.

The court identified three independent grounds supporting dismissal. First, it treated Hernandez-Diaz’s complete and unexplained failure to respond to the dispositive motion as a waiver of his claims. Second, it concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege FCRA violations. Third, it determined that the unanswered requests for admissions established facts supporting summary judgment for Experian.

Judgment on the Pleadings

The court applied to the Rule 12(c) motion the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that standard, a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make liability plausible, rather than merely possible.

Hernandez-Diaz identified six FCRA provisions, but the court found essential allegations missing from the complaint. The complaint did not identify obsolete information for purposes of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a); allege facts involving fraud alerts or identity theft under §§ 1681c-1 and 1681c-2; identify the allegedly inaccurate information or explain how Experian’s procedures were unreasonable under § 1681e(b); allege that he requested a disclosure under § 1681g; or identify an inaccurate item in Experian’s file as required for a claim under § 1681i.

The court therefore granted Experian’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Experian argued that Hernandez-Diaz’s failure to answer the requests for admissions meant that the matters in those requests were admitted. The court recognized that late responses are not automatically treated as admissions and that courts may allow withdrawal or amendment of admissions in appropriate circumstances. But Hernandez-Diaz remained silent and did not ask for more time, seek to withdraw the admissions, or provide evidence explaining his nonresponse.

The court therefore treated the matters in the requests as admitted. Among other things, Hernandez-Diaz admitted that Experian had never provided inaccurate information in his credit report, had followed reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, had not damaged him, had never been contacted by him to dispute information in his credit report or disclosure, and had never failed to provide a requested copy of his credit disclosure. The court concluded that these admissions defeated his FCRA claims and that summary judgment would be proper if judgment on the pleadings were not already appropriate.

Disposition

Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and alternative motion for summary judgment. The action was dismissed with prejudice, and the court directed that judgment be entered.