Moreira v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-03442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moreira v. Experian, Judge Subramanian ordered supplemental briefs and scheduled argument on Experian’s pending arbitration motion.
Ismael Moreira and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., who were ordered to submit supplemental briefs concerning Experian’s motion to compel arbitration.
What happened
In Moreira v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the court ordered both sides to file supplemental letters about Experian’s pending motion to compel arbitration. The letters may not exceed three pages and were due August 21, 2023.
The court asked the parties to address whether Moreira’s claims were connected to his enrollment in CreditWorks, whether the alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act violations would have occurred regardless of that enrollment, and how this case compares with several earlier decisions about arbitration clauses.
Judge Arun Subramanian also scheduled oral argument for August 29, 2023, unless the court later ordered otherwise. This order did not decide the motion to compel arbitration or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Moreira v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03442
- Subramanian
- Aug. 15, 2023
Order
The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs, limited to three pages, concerning Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s pending motion to compel arbitration. The briefs were due by 5:00 p.m. on August 21, 2023.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court directed the parties to address whether Ismael Moreira’s claims against Experian arose from, or had some connection with, his enrollment in CreditWorks. The court also asked whether the alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act—including alleged failures to use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy of reports and to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information—would have occurred regardless of Moreira’s enrollment in CreditWorks.
The parties were further directed to compare the facts and arbitration language in this case with the decisions cited by the court: McFarlane v. Altice USA, Inc., Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc., and Wexler v. AT & T Corp. The court specifically asked whether the phrase “arising out of relating to this Agreement” had a narrower scope than the language in those cases, whether arbitrability would still be for the arbitrator in disputes unrelated to the agreement, and how the language here differed meaningfully from the language previously considered.
Disposition
The order scheduled oral argument on the motion to compel arbitration for August 29, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., unless the court later ordered otherwise. Judge Arun Subramanian did not decide the motion to compel arbitration or the merits of Moreira’s claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.