King v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 AARON KING, 11 Plaintiff, No. 22-07484 WHA 12 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR LLC, EXPERIAN INFORMATION OF LEXISNEXIS 14 SOLUTIONS, INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and TRANS UNION, 15 LLC, 16 Defendant.

18 INTRODUCTION 19 In this pro se action regarding consumer reporting information, a former defendant has 20 moved for judgment to be entered in its favor against plaintiff. To the extent stated herein, the 21 motion is GRANTED.

22 STATEMENT 23 Pro se plaintiff Aaron King filed suit in 2022 against four consumer reporting agencies 24 (“CRAs”): Equifax Information Services, Experian Information Solutions, Trans Union, LLC, 25 and LexisNexis Risk Solutions. As will be discussed below, the only remaining defendant in 26 this action is Trans Union. However, given that LexisNexis makes the instant motion, the 27 following recapitulation of events will focus on allegations lodged against LexisNexis.

1 Plaintiff’s central claim is that his consumer and credit information is being associated with that of other man of the same name (“Louisiana Aaron”). Plaintiff alleges that starting in 2020, he has faced obstacles in applying for government benefits, loans, and instance due to inaccurate reporting. With respect to LexisNexis specifically, plaintiff alleged that there are addresses not associated with him which were nonetheless included in a disclosure he had received upon request, including the address of Louisiana Aaron. Plaintiff also alleged that LexisNexis refused to release his requested consumer file disclosure in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g.

9 In 2023, all defendants except Trans Union moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

10 Plaintiff opposed the motion and simultaneously sought leave to file an amended complaint, 11 for which he was entitled as a matter of course (Dkt. No. 34). Having reviewed the amended 12 complaint and additional reply briefs filed by the three moving defendants, an order granted 13 the motion to dismiss all claims against the three moving defendants in the action, including 14 defendant LexisNexis (Dkt. No. 45). With respect to the allegations against LexisNexis, that 15 order found that plaintiff had pled “nonspecific allegations” which were “outweighed by pled 16 facts indicating that LexisNexis did in fact provide such disclosures” (id. at 7). However, the 17 same order also permitted plaintiff to seek leave to amend his complaint (id. at 11).

18 Plaintiff then moved for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 62). The 19 proposed second amended complaint added new allegations which included that he had applied 20 for credit but was denied several times, due in part to insufficient credit history, and that his 21 file was merged with that of another Aaron King (“Ohio Aaron”) due to inaccurate information 22 spread by Trans Union.

23 All four defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. A subsequent 24 order found that all the amendment reasserting FCRA claims against Experian, Equifax, and 25 LexisNexis would be futile, and were therefore denied (Dkt. No. 68 at 7). Likewise, that order 26 found that the proposed amendment of new FCRA claims against Experian, Equifax, and 27 LexisNexis, were futile, and therefore denied. Claims of common law fraud and breach of claims against TransUnion were also denied. In light of this, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint with regard to Experian, Equifax, and LexisNexis was denied (id. at 12).

3 Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for leave was only granted to the extent that there are plausible claims against Trans Union, and not the three other defendants. Plaintiff then filed a third amended complaint against Trans Union only, which is currently the operative complaint (Dkt.

6 No. 69).

7 LexisNexis now moves for entry of judgment pursuant to FRCP 54(b) on the grounds that there are no claims currently pending against LexisNexis in this action. Plaintiff has opposed the motion. This order follows full briefing and oral argument.

10 ANALYSIS 11 As stated above, a prior order denied reasserted and new claims against LexisNexis (as 12 well as Experian and Equifax). Rule 54(b) provides, in relevant part: When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or 13 when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or 14 parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.

In determining whether final judgment should be entered under Rule 54(b), a district court must first determine whether there is, in essence, already a final judgment. “It must be a ‘judgment’ in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be ‘final’ in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1980).

Here, LexisNexis has shown that there is, in essence, final judgment. First, a previous order dismissed the first amended complaint against LexisNexis (Dkt. No. 45). Second, another order denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint insofar as the claims against LexisNexis were futile (Dkt. No. 68). As stated above, that order found that the reasserted FCRA claims, newly asserted FCRA claims, and reasserted non-FCRA claims were all futile. As such, amendments with respect to LexisNexis were denied. As noted by LexisNexis in their motion, “[b]etween the dismissal and denial of plaintiff’s motion to amend,” the judgment against LexisNexis was final. This order agrees.

1 This order now turns to the second inquiry: whether there is any reason to delay entering formal judgment. For this, the district court must decide whether there is any just reason for delay by considering “judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.”

4 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1980).

5 LexisNexis argues that because each defendant is a CRA and all of them prepare consumer reports independently, the claims against LexisNexis do not share a common nucleus of operative facts with the claims against the other three defendants. Therefore, according to LexisNexis, its claims are severable and judicial administrative interests weigh in favor of entering judgment. In his opposition, plaintiff argues that there is a common nucleus of fact 10 because LexisNexis had allegedly advertised identifying information belonging to another 11 Aaron King, as the other three defendants had done. This order does not agree with plaintiff 12 for two reasons.

13 First, plaintiff’s contention does not alter the fact that each defendant produces consumer 14 reports independently of one another. Nor has plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the other 15 defendants relied on information from LexisNexis to demonstrate a common nucleus of fact.

16 Second, even if plaintiff had made such an allegation, a previous order found such allegations 17 and amendments futile. Plaintiff attempts to rehash several allegations found in his first and 18 second amended complaints but fails to identify how the claims against LexisNexis overlap the 19 claims against the other defendants. Only a narrow set of claims remain in this matter, which 20 pertain to the cancellation of plaintiff’s MetLife insurance policy due to Trans Union’s 21 reporting and remaining FCRA claims against Trans Union. And to be clear, plaintiff has not 22 alleged that MetLife also relied on LexisNexis’s reporting in deciding to cancel the policy.

23 Nor would entering judgment in favor of LexisNexis be inequitable. This action has 24 trailed on for two years in which the undersigned judge has implored plaintiff to plead 25 plausible claims for relief and allege facts as fully as possible. Plaintiff has been given several 26 opportunities to do so and has managed to present a narrow set of claims in this action that 27 have survived several rounds of briefing and oral argument. Yet, the surviving claims simply 1 do not involve LexisNexis. Nor has plaintiff identified a compelling reason to delay entering 2 judgment in favor of LexisNexis.

3 As a final matter, plaintiff uses a majority of his opposition brief to present what appears 4 to be a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). If so, it is not persuasive and is therefore 5 DENIED.

6 CONCLUSION 7 For the forgoing reasons, LexisNexis’s motion for entry of judgment is GRANTED.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: June 13, 2024.

WILLIAM ALSUP 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE = 17 Z 18