Rajapakse v. Shaw

Background

On March 23, 2022, the Court adopted in full Magistrate Judge Wang’s report and recommendation. That earlier order dismissed Rajapakse’s claims with prejudice, denied her leave to file a second amended complaint, and prohibited her from filing new civil actions in the court related to the defendants’ representation of Equifax in a separate proceeding.

Rajapakse filed objections to the report and recommendation on March 28, 2022. The objections were untimely, so the Court construed them as a motion asking it to reconsider the March 23 order.

Court’s analysis

The Court explained that reconsideration is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or serious unfairness requiring correction.

The Court found no adequate explanation for the late filing. Rajapakse said she first received the report and recommendation on March 14, 2022, but the Court stated that she had agreed to electronic service and that the report had been emailed to her twice. The Court had also extended the deadline for objections to March 18 and warned that it would not extend the deadline again. The Court therefore found no clear error or serious unfairness warranting reconsideration.

The Court separately concluded that timely objections would not have changed its earlier decision. It said most of Rajapakse’s objections did not address the grounds for dismissal and instead repeated arguments from earlier filings. The objections that did address the magistrate judge’s conclusions were, in the Court’s view, too general. For example, Magistrate Judge Wang had concluded under existing case law that the defendants were not third parties under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Rajapakse objected that the law firm was not a credit reporting agency or debt collector and lacked authorization to obtain her credit information, but the Court found that this did not address the recommendation’s analysis. After reviewing the recommendation, the Court found no clear error.

Disposition

The Court denied Rajapakse’s motion for reconsideration. The earlier dismissal with prejudice, denial of leave to file a second amended complaint, and filing injunction therefore remained in effect. The Court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Rajapakse, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and record the mailing on the docket.