Wimberly v. Experian Information Soultions

Background

Jason Wimberly, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc. under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (NYFCRA). The dispute concerned six student loans from the U.S. Department of Education. Wimberly alleged that Experian:

- reported information about the loans after the periods allowed by law; - failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure that his credit report was accurate; and - failed to disclose all information in his file, including Automated Consumer Dispute Verifications (ACDVs) and Universal Data Forms (UDFs).

Wimberly also sought a preliminary injunction, which would have required Experian to stop the alleged continuing violations while the case proceeded. Experian moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Reporting-period claims

The court held that Wimberly had not adequately alleged when the six loans became delinquent, were placed for collection, or were charged to profit and loss. Those dates were necessary to determine whether Experian reported the loans beyond the periods allowed by the FCRA and NYFCRA. The court found that listing the loans’ opening dates and asserting that Experian exceeded the legal reporting periods was not enough.

The documents Wimberly submitted also undermined his allegations. According to the court, the documents showed that the loans entered collection at dates that meant the shorter New York reporting period had not expired when Wimberly brought the case. The court therefore concluded that the claims under the relevant FCRA and NYFCRA reporting-period provisions failed to state a claim.

Accuracy claims

Wimberly alleged that Experian reported the loans inaccurately, including by reporting paid loans as unpaid and by using inconsistent dates, payment statuses, balances, and loan terms. The court found that his allegation about the loans being reported as unpaid was contradicted by the credit report closest to the filing of the amended complaint, which described the accounts as in collection and assigned to the government. Wimberly also acknowledged that Experian correctly reported that status.

The court considered additional allegations raised in Wimberly’s opposition papers because he was representing himself. It found that many of those allegations identified apparent inconsistencies without explaining why the information was false or misleading in a way likely to harm him. The court also found that the reported 36-month payment term did not adequately support an inaccuracy claim because the documents showed that the term appeared after the loans entered collection and were assigned to the government, while earlier reports listed longer terms.

The court further ruled that some of Wimberly’s allegations concerned reports too old to support claims under the FCRA or NYFCRA. It concluded that Wimberly had not stated claims under the FCRA accuracy provision or the related NYFCRA provisions.

Requested file information

The court held that ACDVs and UDFs were internal records Experian used to process disputes. Although the FCRA requires a consumer reporting agency to disclose information in a consumer’s file, the court concluded that those internal records were not part of the consumer’s file for purposes of that disclosure requirement. The court therefore held that Wimberly failed to state claims under the FCRA and NYFCRA disclosure provisions based on Experian’s refusal to provide the ACDVs and UDFs.

Preliminary injunction

The court denied Wimberly’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It first reasoned that, because Wimberly had not stated a claim under the reporting-period provisions, he could not show harm prohibited by those provisions. The court also found the request moot because Experian had deleted the six loans from Wimberly’s credit report in March 2019. The court concluded that the information could not reappear on the report and that the alleged harm could not reasonably be expected to recur.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Experian’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and denied Wimberly’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court permitted Wimberly, if he wished, to file a motion for leave to submit a second amended complaint by January 31, 2020. Any proposed complaint would need to provide more detail about the alleged inaccuracies and about how Experian failed to use reasonable reporting procedures.