Lok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-00154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lok v. Experian, Judge Roman compelled arbitration and stayed the case, while denying Experian’s dismissal motion without prejudice to renewal.
Simon Lok and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; the case is stayed while the parties pursue arbitration, and Experian may renew its dismissal motion after the stay is lifted.
What happened
In Lok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Simon Lok alleged that Experian wrongly reported late payments from an American Express account on his credit report, violating federal and New York credit-reporting laws.
Experian asked the court to require arbitration under the terms of Lok’s Experian CreditWorks service and to dismiss the complaint. Lok acknowledged that an arbitration agreement existed, disputed whether it covered his claims, and agreed that an arbitrator could decide that issue.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Experian’s request to compel arbitration and stay the case. He denied the dismissal motion without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted, and directed the parties to pursue arbitration and notify the court when it ends.
The detailed version
- Lok v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-00154
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 25, 2022
Background
Simon Lok sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc., under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and New York General Business Law § 380 et seq. Lok alleged that an American Express account opened by an unknown consumer appeared on his credit report because he was an authorized user. After the account was closed, Experian allegedly reported historical late payments from 2019 as belonging to Lok. He alleged that the reporting error prevented him from obtaining and applying for credit.
Beginning in April 2020, Lok was enrolled in Experian CreditWorks, a credit-monitoring service. The service’s terms of use included an arbitration clause covering disputes and claims directly relating to the provision of the service or the use of its website.
Motions and Positions
Experian moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint. Lok conceded that an arbitration agreement existed but argued that his claims did not arise from that agreement. He agreed to proceed to arbitration so that the arbitrator could decide whether the claims fell within the agreement’s scope.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that deciding whether to compel arbitration generally requires determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate and whether the agreement covers the disputed claims. The court also noted that a broad arbitration agreement creates a presumption that a dispute is covered, and that a party seeking to avoid arbitration generally bears the burden of showing that the agreement does not apply or is invalid.
Because the parties agreed that the matter should proceed to arbitration, the court granted Experian’s motion to compel arbitration. The opinion did not decide the merits of Lok’s credit-reporting claims or finally resolve whether those claims fall within the arbitration agreement; it allowed the arbitrator to decide that scope issue.
Disposition
Experian’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding was GRANTED. Experian’s motion to dismiss the complaint was DENIED without prejudice to renew once the stay is lifted. The court directed the parties to promptly pursue arbitration and notify the court when arbitration concluded. The clerk was directed to stay the case and terminate the two motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.