Moss v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Background

David Moss filed this self-represented action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He alleged that Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Brian Cassin, identified as Experian’s chief executive officer; and the “NYC Child Support Enforcement Agency” reported derogatory and inaccurate information about him to third parties. The complaint specifically referred to a child-support account with allegedly erroneous arrears that had appeared as a tradeline on his credit report since 1998. The court understood the agency named in the complaint to be the City of New York.

The opinion states that Moss alleged he resided in Elmont, Nassau County, New York, although his mailing address was in Vancouver, Washington. Moss did not state where Cassin resided.

Venue Analysis

The court discussed 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the federal venue statute. It explained that venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court noted that the City of New York resides in both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York for this purpose. It also stated that Experian, as a corporation and credit-reporting agency, appeared to reside in the Southern District, the Eastern District, and every other federal district under the applicable venue rules.

Because Moss did not allege Cassin’s residence, the court said it was unclear whether the Southern District was proper under the provision concerning where defendants reside. Even if the Southern District was proper, however, the court concluded that the Eastern District was also proper because the alleged events appeared to have occurred in Nassau County.

Transfer Decision

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case to another federal district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court considered the alleged location of the events and found it reasonable to expect that relevant documents and witnesses would be located in the Eastern District. It therefore determined that the Eastern District was the more convenient forum.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This was a transfer, not a decision on whether Moss’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims were legally or factually valid. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, and summonses were not to issue from that court.

Other Rulings

The court left it to the transferee court to decide whether Moss could proceed without prepaying filing fees. It also deferred to that court on Moss’s request for permission to file electronically and directed that motion to be terminated in the Southern District. Because Moss had not signed his fee-waiver application, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.