SERFESS v. EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC et al
Filing
96
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 9/1/15. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
(Doc. Nos. 78 & 85)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
Joseph SERFESS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION
:
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
___________________________________ :
Civil No. 13-0406 (RBK/JS)
OPINION
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on three motions of Joseph Serfess (“Plaintiff”): Motion
to Reinstate All Claims Against Defendant Equifax (Doc. No. 78), Motion for Summary
Judgment (against all defendants) (Doc. No. 78), and Motion to Strike and Dismiss Declaration
of Latonya Munson (Doc. No. 85). For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, all motions are
DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of allegedly inaccurate information that appeared on Plaintiff’s
credit report following the short sale of his property. Pl. Motion to Reinstate 2. This Court
granted Defendant Equifax’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety on August 28, 2014.
See Aug. 28, 2014 Op. and Order. Magistrate Judge Schneider then denied Plaintiff’s motion to
amend his complaint. See Magistrate Judge Schneider’s Order of October 7, 2014. On January
14, 2015, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Reinstate All Claims Against Defendant Equifax and
1
Motion for Summary Judgment (as to all defendants). Equifax opposed Plaintiff’s motion, and
filed a Declaration of Latonya Munson in support of its opposition on February 3, 2015. Plaintiff
then filed his Motion to Strike the Declaration of Latonya Munson on March 12, 2015.
On February 5, 2015, this Court granted Defendant Bank of America’s motion to dismiss
in its entirety, but allowed Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint within
fourteen (14) days. See Feb. 5, 2015 Op. and Order. Magistrate Judge Schneider granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second (Third) Amended Complaint. See
generally Magistrate Judge Schneider’s Order of August 27, 2015. The Order denied Plaintiff’s
motion with respect to Equifax, finding that Plaintiff had not “met the Rule 60(b) standard to
amend a post-judgment pleading.” Id. at 6. The Order also denied Plaintiff’s motion with respect
to Bank of America, “except to the extent it pleads a new cause of action under” 15 U.S.C.
§1681s-2(b). Id.
II.
STANDARDS
A. Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that “the court may relieve a party . . .
from final judgment, order or proceeding” on the grounds of:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) is “a provision for extraordinary relief and may be raised only
upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Mendez v. Sullivan, 488 F. App’x 566, 569 (3d
Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, the Court shall dismiss “[a] motion for summary
judgment unaccompanied by a statement of material facts not in dispute.” The statement must
“set[] forth material facts as to which there does not exist a genuine issue, in separately
numbered paragraphs citing to the affidavits and other documents submitted in support of the
motion.” Local Civil Rule 56.1.
C. Motion to Strike
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A court
has “considerable discretion” in deciding a Rule 12(f) motion. Tonka Corp. v. Rose Art. Indus.,
Inc., 836 F.Supp. 200, 217 (D.N.J. 1993). However, “[m]otions to strike are highly disfavored.”
Eisai Co., Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 629 F.Supp.2d 416, 424 (D.N.J. 2009).
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate All Claims Against Defendant Equifax
Although Plaintiff styles his motion as a motion to “reinstate all claims against Defendant
Equifax,” it is a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from final judgment. Relief from final judgment is
“extraordinary relief” and Plaintiff does not show “exceptional circumstances.” Mendez, 488 F.
App’x at 569. This Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Schneider’s Order of August 27, 2015:
Plaintiff does not meet the high standard for relief from final judgment. As such, Plaintiff’s Rule
60(b) motion is DENIED.
3
B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff did not include a statement of undisputed material facts, as required by Local
Civil Rule 56.1. See generally Pl. Motion to Reinstate. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Because Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion was denied as to Equifax, it would be futile for
Plaintiff to amend its Motion for Summary Judgment as to Equifax. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment as to Equifax is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
Magistrate Judge Schneider granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint as to Bank
of America only to the extent of a new claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). See Magistrate
Judge Schneider’s Order of August 27, 2015 at 16. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Defendant Bank of America is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for his
potential section 1681s-2(b) claim, but DENIED WITH PREJUDICE for all other claims
against Bank of America.
C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Dismiss Declaration of Latonya Munson
Plaintiff “moves to strike Latonya Munson’s Declaration as inadmissible hearsay”
because he asserts “it provides no real evidence/irrelevant evidence to the matter.” Pl. Motion to
Strike 3. But Ms. Munson’s Declaration is not “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Ms. Munson is a Consumer Research Analyst for
Equifax, and she attested to the facts in her Declaration “based on [her] personal knowledge
gained through [her] employment with Equifax and/or [her] review of Equifax’s business
records.” Decl. of Latonya Munson ¶ 3. Furthermore, her Declaration is relevant because it
concerns the status of Plaintiff’s Bank of America account with Equifax, id. at ¶¶ 4-5, and thus
responds to allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate. See Pl. Motion to Reinstate 3
4
(“[I]t appears that Bank of America has not corrected the information it is sending to Equifax, or
has reinstated the incorrect information to Equifax.”). As such, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and
Dismiss Declaration of Latonya Munson is DENIED.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.
Dated: 09/01/2015
s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
5
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.
Why Is My Information Online?