Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Number: 20-3425
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit on appeal from the District of Minnesota (Hennepin County)
Defendant's Attorney: Christopher J. Haugen and Laurence Hodland for Equifax
Adam W. Wiers, Gregory John Myers, James P Joseph , II, Cory Carone for Experian
Amy M. Sieben, Bradley D. Fisher, Camille R. Nicodemus for Trans Union
Description: Minneapolis, Minnesota consumer lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on Fair Credit Reporting Act violation theories.
Anders Rydholm commenced this action against two credit reporting agencies
(“CRAs”), Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) and Trans Union, LLC
(“Trans Union”), for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”).
The district court1 dismissed the complaint for failure to
state plausible claims.
§ 1681 et seq. (“FCRA”). The district court1 dismissed the complaint for failure to
state plausible claims. We affirm.
Rydholm filed a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 7 on May 14, 2019. His
bankruptcy schedules listed a Wells Fargo credit card ending in *1765 as an
unsecured nonpriority claim of $7,977. The bankruptcy court entered a discharge
order a little over three months later.
On November 6, 2019, Rydholm obtained credit reports from both Experian
and Trans Union. The Trans Union report detailed in the public records section that
Rydholm had received a discharge, but it still listed the *1765 account as “Current;
Paid or Paying as Agreed” with an outstanding balance of $7,986. The report from
Experian also listed the account as open with the same balance. While the Experian
report noted that Rydholm had filed for bankruptcy, it did not mention the discharge
in the public records section. Notwithstanding the *1765 account, Rydholm’s other
bankruptcy debts appeared as discharged.
In March 2020, Rydholm sued Experian and Trans Union, claiming the CRAs
violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) because they “do not maintain reasonable procedures
to ensure debts that are derogatory prior to a consumer’s bankruptcy filing do not
continue to report balances owing or past due amounts when those debts are almost
certainly discharged in bankruptcy.” Rydholm requested damages for credit denials,
less favorable borrowing rates, and emotional distress. The CRAs jointly moved to
dismiss the complaint, contending Rydholm failed to plausibly allege their reporting-3-
procedures were unreasonable.2 The district court granted the motion and dismissed
the case with prejudice.