King v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

Filing 111

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT EQUIFAX'S 95 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(B). Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2024)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

AARON KING,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

No. 22-07484 WHA

v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC, TRANS UNION, LLC, and
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.,

ORDER RE DEFENDANT
EQUIFAX’S MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT

Defendants.
15
16
INTRODUCTION
17
In this pro se action regarding consumer reporting information, a former defendant has
18

moved for judgment to be entered in its favor against plaintiff. The motion is GRANTED.

19
STATEMENT
20
Pro se plaintiff Aaron King filed suit in 2022 against four consumer reporting agencies
21

(“CRAs”): Equifax Information Services, Experian Information Solutions, Trans Union, LLC,

22
and LexisNexis Risk Solutions. As will be discussed below, the only remaining defendant in
23
this action is Trans Union. Given, however, that Equifax makes the instant motion, the
24
following history will focus on Equifax.
25

This action concerns defendants allegedly associating plaintiff’s consumer and credit

26
information with that of another gentleman of the same name. This association began almost
27
30 years ago, when a different Aaron King in Louisiana filed for bankruptcy in 1997. Over the
28

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

years, plaintiff was subject to debt collection efforts, allegedly due to defendants’ association

2

of plaintiff’s information with that of the other King.

3

A prior order dismissed all claims as to Equifax (Dkt. No. 45). Plaintiff was also

4

permitted to seek leave to amend his complaint, which he did. In that motion, plaintiff

5

reasserted claims for relief under FCRA Section 1681e, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, 42 U.S.C.

6

Section 200d, common law fraud, and that Equifax had breached a settlement between it and

7

plaintiff from 2008. That proposed amended complaint also added a defamation claim against

8

Equifax. Equifax opposed his motion for leave to amend. A subsequent order denied all

9

claims as to Equifax (Dkt. No. 68). In fact, only a narrow set of claims in this action have

10

survived, which are lodged against Trans Union only (ibid.). Finally, an order denied

11

plaintiff’s reconsideration of its previous order which denied plaintiff’s claims against Equifax

12

(Dkt. 90).

13

Equifax now moves for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). Plaintiff opposes the

14

motion. This order follows full briefing and finds the motion suitable for disposition on the

15

papers under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
ANALYSIS

16
17
18
19

As stated above, a prior order denied reasserted and new claims against Equifax. Rule
54(b) provides, in relevant part:

21

When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or
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
parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just
reason for delay.

22

In determining whether final judgment should be entered under Rule 54(b), a district court

23

must first determine whether there is, in essence, already a final judgment. “It must be a

24

‘judgment’ in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be

25

‘final’ in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course

26

of a multiple claims action.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1980).

27

Here, Equifax has shown that there is, in essence, final judgment. First, a previous order

20

28

dismissed the first amended complaint against Equifax in April 2023 (Dkt. No. 45). Second,
2

1

another order denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint insofar as

2

the claims against Equifax were futile in November 2023 (Dkt. No. 68). That order found that

3

the reasserted FCRA claims, newly asserted FCRA claims, and reasserted non-FCRA claims

4

were all futile. As such, amendments with respect to Equifax were denied. As noted by

5

Equifax in its motion, “[b]etween the dismissal, the denial of leave to amend, and the denial of

6

reconsideration, the judgment against Equifax is final,” (Dkt. No. 95). This order agrees.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

This order now turns to the second inquiry: whether there is any reason to delay entering

8

formal judgment. For this, the district court must decide whether there is any just reason for

9

delay by considering “judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.”

10

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

11

administrative interests weigh in favor of granting the motion because plaintiff’s claims against

12

Equifax are entirely distinguishable from the claims against Trans Union. Further, Equifax

13

argues that granting relief would not be inequitable because there are no pending claims

14

against Equifax in this action. This order agrees. Simply put, a narrow set of claims remain in

15

this action, but none of them involve Equifax. Nor is there an equitable interest at risk for

16

granting judgment in favor of Equifax. For this reason, Equifax’s motion is GRANTED.

17

Plaintiff uses his opposition brief to essentially argue that his second amended complaint,

18

which lodges claims for relief against Equifax, should not have been denied. According to

19

plaintiff, there was evidence not available to him mid-April 2023 which “may have

20

significantly changed the April 18, 2024, ruling of the Court,” (Dkt. No. 45) and he therefore

21

plausibly pled claims against Equifax in his second amended complaint (Opp. 3, 6). Instead of

22

responding to Equifax’s arguments in its motion, plaintiff requests leave to file another motion

23

for reconsideration of the November 2023 order. This Court has already reviewed plaintiff’s

24

second amended complaint, twice (Dkt. Nos. 68, 90). Rehashing arguments in the opposition

25

brief was both ineffective and inappropriate. For this reason, any request to file another

26

motion to reconsider is DENIED.

27
28
3

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the aforementioned reasons, Equifax’s motion for entry of judgment is GRANTED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November 26, 2024.

7
8
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4