Ahmad v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

Rasheed Ahmad, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The case was removed from New York state court to the Southern District of New York based on federal-question jurisdiction. The operative pleading consisted of an amended endorsed complaint and materials Ahmad submitted in a document called “Letter re Exhibits.” The court noted that the state-court complaint itself was blank as to its allegations, apparently because of a clerical error, and that the materials later submitted to the federal court were incomplete.

Ahmad alleged that inaccurate information about ten accounts appeared in his credit report, that some accounts were re-aged, and that he was denied credit as a result. He claimed Experian failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy, failed to verify or correct disputed information, and provided non-public information to third parties without his permission or a permissible purpose. He also demanded original signed contracts for the challenged accounts. The court treated his filings broadly because he was representing himself.

Motion to Dismiss and Federal Claims

Experian moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court held that Ahmad’s filings did not adequately state claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal law governing consumer credit reporting.

For the alleged failure to use reasonable procedures to ensure accuracy under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), the court stated that Ahmad identified account information but did not clearly explain why it was inaccurate. More importantly, he did not allege facts explaining how Experian’s procedures were unreasonable. The court therefore concluded that he did not state either a negligence or a willfulness claim under that provision.

For the alleged failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i, the court acknowledged that Ahmad had complained to Experian and that materials suggested Experian conducted a reinvestigation. But Ahmad did not allege what Experian did or failed to do during that reinvestigation, so the court could not evaluate whether it was reasonable. The court concluded that he did not state a negligent or willful violation of § 1681i.

The court also rejected Ahmad’s apparent claim that Experian needed his consent before providing his credit report to others. The FCRA permits a consumer reporting agency to provide a report for specified purposes, including a credit transaction initiated by the consumer, and does not always require the consumer’s authorization. The court found that Ahmad’s own materials showed he had applied for credit with various financial institutions. He also did not allege that Experian failed to maintain reasonable procedures designed to prevent disclosures for impermissible purposes.

Finally, the court concluded that Ahmad did not state a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a), which requires a consumer reporting agency, upon request, to disclose information in the consumer’s file and the sources of that information. Ahmad appeared to seek original signed contracts for the accounts, but the court stated that the FCRA does not require consumer reporting agencies to keep copies of contracts related to accounts on credit reports.

State-Law Claims

The court understood Ahmad’s state-court materials to suggest claims for defamation and violation of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law § 50. It also noted his reference to the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act. Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the remaining state-law claims standing alone. The court stated that Ahmad could include state-law claims in an amended complaint if he could properly plead them.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Experian’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint. The court gave Ahmad 60 days, until February 12, 2024, to amend. The amended complaint was required to have a proper caption, state claims in numbered paragraphs, and explain the relevant facts, the conduct of each defendant, Ahmad’s injuries, and the relief sought. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the earlier complaint and filings.

Classification Note

This is classified as a procedural order because the court acted on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Although the court discussed the deficiencies in the proposed FCRA claims, the order was a pleading-stage gatekeeping decision rather than a final determination of liability on the underlying credit-reporting dispute.