Hossain v. Trans Union, LLC et al
| Riyad Hossain |
| Trans Union, LLC, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Equifax Information Services, LLC and Experian Information Solutions Inc. |
| 1:2022cv05541 |
| September 16, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Sanket J Bulsara |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporti |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
AMENDED ORDER: For the reasons explained in the attached Memorandum & Order, this case is remanded to state court because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to remand this entire action to the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, under index number 12296-KCV-2022, and terminate this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/27/2022. (EK)
|
| Filing 20 Letter re: correct state court and index number by Riyad Hossain (Tariq, Subhan) |
|
Filing 19
ORDER: For the reasons explained in the attached Memorandum & Order, this case is remanded to state court because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to remand this entire action to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings, under docket number 12296/2022, and terminate this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/24/2022. (EK)
|
| Filing 18 NOTICE by Experian Information Solutions Inc. of Consent to Removal (Kairey, Julius) |
| Filing 17 Letter Response to Order to Show Cause (Joint) by Experian Information Solutions Inc. (Kairey, Julius) |
| Filing 16 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Riyad Hossain. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC waiver sent on 10/5/2022, answer due 12/4/2022. (Tariq, Subhan) |
|
ORDER: The Court has reviewed the #15 letter filed by Defendant Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union") in response to the Court's 9/17/2022 Order to Show Cause. In its letter, Defendant Trans Union directs the Court's attention to several paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint and a portion of Plaintiff's prayer of relief in support of its position that Plaintiff alleges "that Trans Union furnished his credit report to third parties." See Dkt. 15, at 1. The Court disagrees. First, Defendant is advised that a statement contained in "a prayer for relief is not a factual allegation." See Ballard v. Conte, No. 11-CV-5874 (LLS) (KNF), 2013 WL 5716407, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2013), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Ballard v. Walker, 2013 WL 6501234 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2013). Moreover, neither the specific factual allegations that Defendant points out nor any other factual allegations in the Complaint indicate that any third party received Plaintiff's credit report. Instead, the Complaint merely states that Plaintiff accessed his own credit report, and the Court cannot infer from the allegations in the Complaint that any third party received Plaintiff's credit report during the operative period. Although Defendant is correct that the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez does not require credit denial for Article III standing, that decision held that individuals whose credit "reports were disseminated to third parties suffered a concrete injury in fact." 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2209 (2021). Here, there are no allegations of any third party receiving Plaintiff's credit report, or even any allegations that Plaintiff applied for credit while the allegedly mistaken information was on his credit report, which are the types of allegations from which the Court could presume that a third-party would have seen the "tradeline for Plaintiff's PRA account showing an accurate status." See Complaint, Dkt. 1-2 at para. 25.Defendant Trans Union has also misread the Second Circuit's decision in Maddox v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co, N.A., 19 F. 4th 58 (2d Cir. 2021). In Maddox, the Second Circuit held that "[a] perfunctory allegation of emotional distress, especially one wholly incommensurate with the stimulant, is insufficient to plausibly allege constitutional standing." Id. at 66. Defendant states that Plaintiff's allegations are distinguishable from the allegations of emotional distress in Maddox because in this case, "Plaintiff has alleged that third parties accessed his report and saw the alleged in accurate reporting by Trans Union." See Dkt. 15, at 2. However, the Court again cannot find any allegation in the Complaint that states that a third-party accessed Plaintiff's credit report. Defendant appears to be conflating the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint with Defendant's inferences drawn from the Complaint, but such strained inferences cannot be the basis of Article III standing. The Court directs Defendants Equifax Information Services, LLC and Experian Information Solutions Inc. to review this Order in advance of submitting their letters in response to the Order to Show Cause on or before 10/17/2022. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/13/2022. (EK)
|
|
ORDER: The Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer #13 is hereby granted. The deadline for Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to 11/1/2022. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 10/12/2022. (MD)
|
| Filing 15 Letter Response to Order to Show Cause by Trans Union, LLC (Taylor, Rachael) |
| Filing 14 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Equifax Information Services, LLC identifying Corporate Parent Equifax Inc. for Equifax Information Services, LLC. (Brownstein, Boris) |
| Filing 13 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Notice of Removal, by Equifax Information Services, LLC. (Brownstein, Boris) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Boris Brownstein on behalf of Equifax Information Services, LLC (aty to be noticed) (Brownstein, Boris) |
|
ORDER: Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC ("Equifax") is directed to file a reply by 10/17/2022 to Plaintiff's #7 letter regarding the Court's 9/17/2022 Order to Show Cause on Article III standing, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). See 9/16/2022 Docket Entry. Defendant Equifax may, but need not, file a joint letter with Defendant Experian Information Solutions Inc., as both defendants' replies to Plaintiff's #7 letter are due on 10/17/2022. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/11/2022. (EK)
|
|
ORDER: On 9/17/2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause on whether the Court has Article III standing to hear this case. See 9/16/2022 Docket Entry. On 10/3/2022, Plaintiff filed its #7 response to the order to show cause. Defendant Trans Union LLC has until close of business today, 10/11/2022, to reply to Plaintiff's #7 response. See 10/5/2022 Docket Entry. On 10/6/2022, Defendant Experian Information Solutions Inc. ("Experian") entered a notice of appearance. The Court therefore directs Defendant Experian to file its reply to Plaintiff's #7 response by 10/17/2022. Experian's letter should address whether this Court has Article III standing over this case in light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/11/2022. (EK)
|
|
ORDER: The Motion for Extension of Time to File #11 is hereby granted. The deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended to 11/10/2022. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 10/7/2022. (MD)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by Experian Information Solutions Inc.. (Kairey, Julius) |
| Filing 10 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Experian Information Solutions Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Experian plc, Other Affiliate Opt-Out Services LLC, Other Affiliate Central Source LLC, Other Affiliate Online Data Exchange LLC, Other Affiliate New Management Services LLC, Other Affiliate VantageScore Solutions LLC for Experian Information Solutions Inc.. (Kairey, Julius) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Julius Kairey on behalf of Experian Information Solutions Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Kairey, Julius) |
|
ORDER: On 10/3/2022, Plaintiff filed the #7 letter in response to the Court's 9/17/2022 Order to Show Cause. In light of the upcoming federal holiday, the Court extends sua sponte the deadline for Defendant Trans Union LLC to respond to Plaintiff's letter to 10/11/2022. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/5/2022. (EK)
|
| Filing 8 ANSWER to Complaint With Affirmative Defenses by Trans Union, LLC. (Nicodemus, Camille) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Riyad Hossain (Tariq, Subhan) |
|
Filing 6
SCHEDULING ORDER: A telephonic initial conference will be held at 12:30 P.M. on 12/09/2022 before Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. The parties are directed to call the toll-free number 877-336-1274; access code is 6534420. Counsel are directed to complete the attached FDCPA Discovery Worksheet and electronically file same with the Court no later than 12/06/2022. Should the parties wish to adopt a plan for discovery different from the structure in the FDCPA Worksheet, they may do so only if they file a letter explaining why such a plan is appropriate in this case. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other of the date and time of this telephonic initial conference. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 9/22/2022. (Manson, Eddie)
|
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: On September 16, 2022, Defendant Trans Union LLC filed a Notice of Removal of Plaintiff's lawsuit brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C 1681 et seq. (the "FCRA"). (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant, a credit reporting agency, violated the FCRA inter alia failing to modify or delete allegedly inaccurate information from Plaintiff's credit files, causing injury in the form of "impediments to Plaintiff's ability to seek credit, damage to Plaintiff's reputation for creditworthiness, emotional distress, embarrassment, aggravation, and frustration." (Complaint, Dkt. 1-2, at 11, 14.) Plaintiff's Complaint does not plead any factual allegations about actually being denied credit. (See generally id.)In 2021, the Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, clarifying that, even when a defendant violates a statute such as the FCRA, the plaintiff has not necessarily suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing. 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021) ("[A]n important difference exists between (i) a plaintiff's statutory cause of action to sue a defendant over the defendant's violation of federal law, and (ii) a plaintiff's suffering concrete harm because of the defendant's violation of federal law."). Since TransUnion, courts in this Circuit have applied that principle to the types of facts alleged here and found that plaintiffs had not suffered injuries-in-fact and thus did not have standing to sue in federal court. See, e.g., Maddox v. Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co., N.A., 19 F.4th 58, 65 (2d Cir. 2021) (noting that a defendant's action that "adversely affected [the plaintiffs'] credit," thus "making it difficult to obtain financing," was "incapable of giving rise to Article III standing," because the plaintiffs had "not alleged that this purported risk materialized"); Cavazzini v. MRS Assocs., No. 21-CV-5087 (ARR) (ST), 2021 WL 5770273, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021) ("Multiple courts have found alleged confusion to be insufficient for standing in the FDCPA context." (collecting cases)); Kola v. Forster & Garbus LLP, No. 19-CV-10496 (CS), 2021 WL 4135153, at *1, 7(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021) (explaining that merely receiving a misleading or confusing letter under the FDCPA does not establish an injury-in-fact). Such cases may, however, be brought in state courts, which are not bound by the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III of the Constitution. See Cavazzini, 2021 WL 5770273, at *8; Ciccone v. Cavalry Portfolio, No. 21-CV-2428 (JS) (JMW), 2021 WL 5591725, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2021).In light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion, the Court directs Plaintiff to either voluntarily dismiss this case or file a letter showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing, on or before 10/3/2022. Should Plaintiff file a letter, Defendant TransUnion LLC shall file a response, on or before 10/10/2022. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 9/17/2022. (Kim, Eliot)
|
| Filing 5 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 4 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Trans Union, LLC identifying Corporate Parent Trans Union Intermediate Holdings, Inc., Corporate Parent TransUnion, Other Affiliate T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. for Trans Union, LLC. (Nicodemus, Camille) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Camille Renee Nicodemus on behalf of Trans Union, LLC (notification declined or already on case) (Nicodemus, Camille) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Trans Union, LLC from Civil Court County of Kings, case number 12296. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-15946631) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Summons to Trans Union, #2 Exhibit B - Complaint to Trans Union, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Nicodemus, Camille) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen and Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
