Marra v. Equifax Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-08901
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marra v. Equifax, Judge Wang directed the parties to confer about whether the case presents federal claims.
Jonathan Marra and Equifax Inc.; the order temporarily left the remand and more-definite-statement issues unresolved and required the parties to clarify the claims and their legal basis.
What happened
Jonathan Marra sued Equifax Inc. in New York State Supreme Court, alleging negligence involving his personal data, a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation, and harassment from spam calls. Equifax removed the case to federal court, and Marra asked the court to send it back because he said his complaint did not assert a federal claim.
Equifax argued that the complaint could be read as alleging a violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court noted that the complaint was unclear about whether Marra meant the federal law, New York’s law, or no Fair Credit Reporting Act claim at all.
Judge Wang did not decide the remand request. She directed the parties to confer by telephone or email and required Equifax to file a joint status letter by May 13, 2020, explaining which claims Marra intended to pursue and whether they arose under federal or state law. The court said the discussion might also resolve Equifax’s request for a more definite statement.
The detailed version
- Marra v. Equifax Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08901
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 29, 2020
Background
Jonathan Marra brought the action against Equifax Inc. in New York State Supreme Court. His complaint referred to negligence for breach of personal data, a breach of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and harassment from spam phone calls allegedly received after his personal data was breached.
Equifax removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Marra then moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court, arguing that his complaint did not assert a federal claim. Equifax opposed the request, arguing that the complaint appeared to allege a claim under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
Issue
The complaint did not clearly identify which Fair Credit Reporting Act Marra meant. The court explained that the reference could mean the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act or New York’s Fair Credit Reporting Act. Marra’s filings also suggested that he may have intended to assert only a state-law claim or may have intended to drop the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim altogether. The opinion further noted that Marra may have attempted to amend his complaint in state court after the case had already been removed.
Court’s action
The court did not rule on the motion to remand or Equifax’s motion for a more definite statement. Instead, for judicial economy, it directed the parties to meet and confer by telephone or email. Equifax was directed to file a joint status letter on behalf of both parties by May 13, 2020, describing the outcome of that discussion. The letter had to address the claims Marra intended to bring and whether those claims arose under federal or state law.
The court stated that if the case remained in federal court, Marra could amend his complaint. It also stated that if an amended complaint clearly contained no federal claims, the court would no longer have subject-matter jurisdiction. The order was signed by Ona T. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.