Amoruso v. TransUnion
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Amoruso v. TransUnion, Judge Schofield denied Amoruso’s motion to strike TransUnion’s answer because its denials and defenses were not improper pleading material.
The ruling affected Laura Amoruso and TransUnion: Amoruso’s motion to strike was denied, and TransUnion’s answer was not stricken.
What happened
In Amoruso v. TransUnion, Laura Amoruso asked the court to strike TransUnion’s answer, arguing that it was misleading and lacked factual support. She also disputed TransUnion’s defenses and described alleged violations of federal credit-reporting law.
The court denied the motion. It explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to strike only material that is redundant, immaterial, irrelevant to the issues, or scandalous. TransUnion’s denials of Amoruso’s allegations and its affirmative defenses did not meet that standard.
Judge Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The ruling did not decide whether Amoruso’s underlying credit-reporting allegations were valid.
The detailed version
- Amoruso v. TransUnion · No. 1:23-cv-02421
- Lorna Schofield
- May 18, 2023
Background
Laura Amoruso filed a letter motion asking the court to strike TransUnion’s answer to her claims. She argued that TransUnion’s answer was misleading, lacked a factual basis, and did not provide adequate defenses. Her filing also challenged TransUnion’s assertions that it had followed reasonable procedures to keep her credit reports accurate and that she had failed to state a claim for relief. Amoruso described alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and alleged harm involving credit and housing. The opinion does not decide those underlying allegations.
Legal standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). That rule allows a district court to strike material from pleadings when it is redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. The court noted that motions to strike are generally disfavored, except in relation to scandalous matters that attack a litigant’s character.
Ruling
The court denied Amoruso’s motion to strike TransUnion’s answer. It explained that TransUnion’s answer denied Amoruso’s allegations and asserted affirmative defenses, and that neither action constituted redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material sufficient to justify striking the answer. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at docket entry 22. Judge Lorna Schofield did not rule on the merits of Amoruso’s underlying credit-reporting claims in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.