Pulliam v. Experian Information Systems Inc.

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/29/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL PULLIAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, )
INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No.

12 C 6989

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian,” mistakenly
sued as “Experian Information Systems, Inc.”) has filed its
Answer to the pro se Complaint brought against it by Michael
Pulliam (“Pulliam”), in which he charges multiple violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This brief sua sponte memorandum

order is occasioned by a few problematic aspects of that
responsive pleading.
To begin with, Answer ¶10 follows a technically compliant
disclaimer under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5) with this
language:

“and, on that basis, denies, generally and

specifically, each and every allegation contained therein.”

That

is of course oxymoronic--how can a party that asserts (presumably
in good faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a
belief as to the truth of an allegation then proceed to deny it
in accordance with Rule 11(b)?

Accordingly the quoted phrase is

stricken from that paragraph of the Answer.
Next, the affirmative defenses (“ADs”) that Experian has

appended to its Answer call for correction--in that respect,
counsel should pay heed not only to the content of Rule 8(c) and
the caselaw applying it but also to App’x ¶5 to State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
Here are the problems:
1.

AD 2 flies in the face of Pulliam’s allegation that

Experian has been reporting “inaccurate statements and
information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s credit
history” (Complaint ¶6), an allegation echoed throughout the
Complaint.

Because every AD must accept a plaintiff’s

allegations as gospel, AD 2 is stricken.
2.

AD 3 disclaims responsibility on Experian’s part by

charging third party improprieties, but Pulliam has alleged
that he called the claimed errors to Experian’s attention,
yet it continued to disseminate the allegedly inaccurate
information (once again, those allegations must be credited
for AD purposes).
3.

AD 3 is stricken as well.

AD 1 poses a different kind of problem by asserting

a defense that, if true, might dispatch this lawsuit.

That

being so, Experian is expected to bring that matter on by
motion forthwith, so that it can be addressed at the
threshold if possible.
Finally, Pulliam has also filed a comparable pro se action
against Equifax Credit Information Services LLC, 12 C 7144.

2

That

action has been set for an initial status hearing at 9 a.m.
November 2, 2012.

In the interest of convenience for the

parties, this Court orders that a status hearing in this action
be held at the same date and time.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

October 29, 2012

3