Norman v. Trans Union LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-09245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Norman v. Trans Union LLC, Judge Woods dismissed the Fair Credit Reporting Act complaint without prejudice but allowed amendment within 30 days.
Ruth Noemi Norman and the three defendant credit-reporting companies: Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union LLC.
What happened
In Norman v. Trans Union LLC, Ruth Noemi Norman, representing herself, sued Experian Information Solutions, Equifax Information Services, and Trans Union under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The defendants asked the court to dismiss her amended complaint.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims with prejudice because the complaint did not state a claim under the Act. The district court agreed that the complaint had pleading problems, including the allegations about furnishing a credit report, reinvestigation, and transactions with third parties.
Judge Gregory Woods adopted the recommendation in part but dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. He granted Norman leave to file another amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies within 30 days and terminated the defendants’ dismissal motion.
The detailed version
- Norman v. Trans Union LLC · No. 1:23-cv-09245
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
Ruth Noemi Norman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Norman initially filed the action in New York state court, later filed an amended complaint, and the defendants removed the case to federal court.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended dismissing Norman’s claims with prejudice and denying leave to amend. Norman objected, but the district court found that her objections largely repeated her earlier arguments and did not meaningfully address the reasons given in the report and recommendation.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Norman failed to state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court agreed with the report and recommendation’s conclusions that Norman had not adequately alleged that the defendants violated the Act by furnishing her credit report without her consent or a court order; had not alleged that the defendants failed to complete a required reinvestigation; and had incorrectly interpreted the Act’s definition of a consumer report to bar credit-reporting agencies from including transactions between a consumer and third parties.
Because Norman’s objections did not specifically challenge those conclusions, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court stated that Judge Cott’s conclusions were sound even under more searching review and adopted the determination that Norman had failed to state a claim.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court declined to adopt the recommendation that leave to amend be denied. It explained that Norman had amended her complaint in state court before receiving the court’s analysis of the defendants’ dismissal motion. The court determined that the identified pleading problems could potentially be corrected and granted Norman leave to amend for that purpose.
The court adopted the report and recommendation nearly in full, dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, directed that any amended complaint be filed within 30 days of the opinion, and directed the clerk to terminate the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.