Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA
- Sidney Stein
- 1:21-cv-01156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Suluki v. Credit One Bank, Judge Stein granted Suluki’s request to file supplemental CFPB guidance supporting her summary-judgment motion.
The order affects Khalilah Suluki’s ability to submit supplemental authority in support of her pending summary-judgment motion and Credit One Bank, NA, as a party to the pending motions.
What happened
In Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA, Khalilah Suluki asked to file a recent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau publication as additional legal support for her motion for summary judgment. She said the publication discussed reasonable investigations of disputes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and was issued after the summary-judgment briefing ended.
Suluki argued that the publication was relevant to the parties’ motions because Credit One’s investigations into her disputes about account reporting were central to those motions. She also argued that the publication should be considered because it was unavailable when the parties submitted their briefs.
The court granted Suluki’s request to file the supplemental authority. Judge Stein’s order did not decide the pending summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA · No. 1:21-cv-01156
- Sidney Stein
- Nov. 17, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Khalilah Suluki, through counsel, requested permission to file a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau publication—Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2022-07, issued November 10, 2022—as supplemental authority supporting her motion for summary judgment. The request stated that the publication provided persuasive guidance about interpreting the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer-reporting practices.
Parties’ positions
Suluki argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s interpretations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act can be persuasive authority. She also argued that the publication was relevant because it discussed the reasonableness of investigations into disputes. According to the request, the reasonableness of Credit One’s investigations into Suluki’s disputes about reporting an account as belonging to her was central to both parties’ summary-judgment motions.
Suluki further stated that the publication was issued more than five months after summary-judgment briefing closed and therefore was not available when the parties briefed those motions. She asked the court to allow her to file the publication and consider it in analyzing the pending motions.
Ruling
The court granted Suluki’s request to file supplemental authority. The order did not rule on either pending summary-judgment motion or decide the underlying Fair Credit Reporting Act dispute. The order was signed by Sidney H. Stein, U.S. District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.