WILLIAMS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. et al
Filing
73
ORDERED DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DI 57) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. MR. WILLIAMSS RICO, MAIL FRAUD, WIRE FRAUD CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED, AND MR. WILLIAMSS NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND UNJ UST ENRICHMENT CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. HIS FCRA CLAIMS UNDER 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681E(B), 1681I(A), AND 1681N, AS WELL AS HIS DEFAMATION CLAIM, SURVIVE. MR. WILLIAMSS MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DI 29, DI 30, DI 42) ARE DENIED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS ANSWERS SUFFICIENTLY CONTEST THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS IN HIS COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 8(B).. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN F MURPHY ON 3/4/2025. 3/5/2025 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg)
Case 2:24-cv-02519-JFM
Document 73
Filed 03/04/25
Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AHMAD WILLIAMS
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION,
LLC, EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC
: CIVIL ACTION
:
: NO. 24-2519
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of March 2025, upon considering defendants’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings (DI 57), plaintiff’s opposition (DI 59), defendants’ reply (DI 63), and
for reasons in the accompanying memorandum, it is ORDERED defendants’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings (DI 57) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Mr.
Williams’s RICO, mail fraud, wire fraud claims are dismissed, and Mr. Williams’s negligence,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment claims are dismissed with
prejudice. His FCRA claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681i(a), and 1681n, as well as his
defamation claim, survive. Mr. Williams’s motions for judgment on the pleadings (DI 29, DI
30, DI 42) are denied because defendants’ answers sufficiently contest the material allegations
in his complaint under Rule 8(b).
MURPHY, J.
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?