Phipps v. Experian

Background

Derrick Phipps, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Experian Information Solutions, LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Phipps asked Experian to update information in his credit file, including his name and address. He later claimed that he was a victim of identity theft and asked Experian to block allegedly fraudulent inquiries and closed accounts. The parties’ remaining dispute concerned Experian’s reporting of two different birth years. Experian later updated Phipps’s birth year to 1965.

Phipps filed the action on April 27, 2020, and later filed an amended complaint. The parties settled on May 9, 2021, but the court received a later letter from Phipps that it treated as a request to reopen the case. Experian then filed motions for summary judgment, to compel Phipps to appear for a deposition, and for sanctions.

Standing and Jurisdiction

Before a federal court can decide a claim, the plaintiff must have standing. Standing requires a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would address the injury.

The court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which distinguishes between inaccurate information kept only in a credit-reporting agency’s internal file and inaccurate information disclosed to third parties. The court concluded that Phipps had not shown a concrete injury fairly traceable to the information he challenged.

The court stated that incorrect addresses and birth years were materially different from the misleading information at issue in Ramirez. Although Phipps submitted credit reports showing that some information had been shared with third parties, the reports identified other factors—not the challenged personal information—as affecting his credit score. The loan-denial letter likewise cited account history, loan balances, recent revolving balances, and related factors, and did not refer to Phipps’s personal information. The court also found that the foreclosure and repossession notices did not establish a sufficiently traceable connection to Experian’s conduct or the disputed information.

Disposition

The court held that Phipps had not demonstrated the concrete, traceable injury required for standing. It therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the action was dismissed, the court denied as moot Experian’s motions for summary judgment, to compel Phipps to appear for a deposition, and for sanctions. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 83 and terminate the action.