Sathue v. Equifax Information Services LLC
- Denise Cote
- 1:20-cv-01968
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sathue v. Equifax, Judge Cote granted LexisNexis’s unopposed motion to dismiss and closed the case.
Justin Sathue and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, LLC; the order also notes that claims against Equifax Information Services LLC, First Data Corp., and Citigroup N.A. had previously been dismissed.
What happened
In Sathue v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Justin Sathue alleged that negligence, failure to resolve identity theft, and failure to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act caused him $10,000 in damages. The case had been moved from New York State Court to federal court.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, LLC asked the court to dismiss the complaint. Sathue was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint or oppose the motion, but he did neither and did not ask for more time. The opinion also states that the claims against Equifax Information Services LLC, First Data Corp., and Citigroup N.A. had previously been dismissed.
Judge Denise Cote granted LexisNexis’s unopposed motion to dismiss and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not give additional reasons explaining why the complaint failed.
The detailed version
- Sathue v. Equifax Information Services LLC · No. 1:20-cv-01968
- Denise Cote
- June 1, 2020
Background
Justin Sathue brought this action in New York State Court. The action was removed to federal court on March 5, 2020. The defendants named in the caption were Equifax Information Services LLC, Citigroup Incorporated, First Data Corp., and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, LLC.
The opinion states that the claims against Equifax Information Services LLC, First Data Corp., and Citigroup N.A. were dismissed in an April 21, 2020 order. The remaining ruling addressed LexisNexis’s motion to dismiss.
Motion and Opportunity to Respond
On April 22, 2020, LexisNexis moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. On April 24, Sathue was given until May 15, 2020, to file an amended complaint or oppose the motion. The court stated that he did not file an amended complaint, oppose the motion, or request an extension.
Allegations and Legal Standard
The court treated Sathue as proceeding without a lawyer and explained that it must read such a complaint liberally, meaning it must consider the strongest arguments reasonably suggested by the allegations. But the complaint still had to include enough facts to make a claim plausible. The court also stated that it could not invent factual allegations that Sathue had not pleaded.
The court described the allegations in the New York civil court pleading as asserting that the defendants’ negligence, willful failure to resolve identity theft, and willful failure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act caused Sathue $10,000 in damages.
Ruling
Judge Denise Cote ordered that LexisNexis’s unopposed April 22 motion to dismiss was granted. The clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal permits Sathue to refile or provide further details about the basis for dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.