Moore v. Experian
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-00673
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moore v. Experian, Judge Engelmayer reviewed Moore’s late, conclusory objections and left the prior dismissal with prejudice and case closure in place.
Erisa Moore, Experian, and TransUnion; the case remains closed, and the court stated that Moore waived appellate review by filing late objections.
What happened
Erisa Moore sued Experian and TransUnion under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Before this order, the court had adopted a magistrate judge’s report and dismissed the case with prejudice. Moore, who was representing herself, then sent a letter objecting to that report.
The court said Moore’s objections were filed late. It reviewed them anyway and found that they made only broad, unsupported statements that the defendants had acted negligently, violated the law, failed to remove unverifiable information, and failed to use reasonable procedures. The court said these objections did not address the specific pleading problems identified in the report.
Judge Engelmayer found no clear error in the earlier report and stated that the case remained closed. He also said Moore’s late objections waived appellate review.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Experian · No. 1:23-cv-00673
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 6, 2023
Background
On October 30, 2023, the court issued an opinion and order adopting a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. The court dismissed Moore’s action with prejudice and closed the case. Moore, proceeding without a lawyer, later submitted a letter purporting to object to the report.
Objections and Analysis
The court stated that Moore’s objections were untimely. It nevertheless reviewed them. Moore asserted that alleged unauthorized reinvestigations were negligent, that the defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act willfully or negligently, that they failed to delete information that could not be verified, and that they did not follow reasonable procedures.
The court treated the objections as conclusory and general. It found no facial error in Magistrate Judge Cave’s thorough and well-reasoned report. The court also stated that, even under more searching review, Moore’s objections did not respond to the deficiencies identified in the report. Those deficiencies included failing to plausibly allege that the defendants sought or used information for an impermissible purpose or willfully or negligently failed to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent improper disclosure. The court said such nonspecific and conclusory allegations were insufficient on a motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The order stated that the case remained closed. It also stated that Moore’s failure to file timely objections operated as a waiver of appellate review. The court did not alter the earlier dismissal with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.