Lok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-00154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Lok v. Experian, Judge Roman denied pre-motion conference requests but allowed Experian to file motions to compel arbitration or dismiss.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. was allowed to proceed with filing a proposed arbitration or dismissal motion, while Simon Lok received a briefing schedule for responding; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
Lok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act concerning alleged inaccurate credit reporting about an American Express account. The opinion text says Simon Lok also asserted a related New York state-law claim.
Experian asked for pre-motion conferences about proposed motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The court did not decide either proposed motion.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Experian’s requests for pre-motion conferences, waived the conference requirement, and allowed Experian to file either proposed motion under a specified briefing schedule. The clerk was directed to terminate the two pre-motion requests.
The detailed version
- Lok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-00154
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
The underlying case is a putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to Experian’s pre-motion letter, Simon Lok alleged that Experian reported historical late payments associated with an American Express account on his credit report, even though the account belonged to another consumer and had been paid and closed. Lok asserted a federal claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), concerning reasonable procedures for ensuring the accuracy of consumer reports, and a related New York state-law claim. He alleged that Experian’s conduct was negligent and willful.
Requests Before the Court
Experian requested a pre-motion conference to discuss a proposed motion to compel arbitration. Experian’s letter argued that Lok had agreed to arbitration through the terms governing an Experian CreditWorks service and that the arbitration agreement covered his claims on an individual, rather than class-wide, basis.
Experian separately requested a pre-motion conference to discuss a proposed motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Experian argued that Lok had not alleged that he notified Experian of the claimed inaccuracy and therefore had not adequately pleaded violations of the federal and New York statutes. Experian also argued that the complaint lacked facts showing a willful violation.
Ruling
The court denied Experian’s requests for pre-motion conferences. It waived the pre-motion conference requirement and granted Experian permission to file its proposed motion to compel arbitration or its proposed motion to dismiss. The court set deadlines for serving the motion papers and required all motion documents to be filed on April 19, 2021. It directed the clerk to terminate the requests at ECF Nos. 8 and 9.
The order did not decide whether arbitration was required, whether Lok’s claims should be dismissed, or whether the complaint stated a valid claim. Judge Nelson S. Roman’s ruling addressed only the pre-motion conference requirement and the schedule for any proposed motion.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.