Abdallah v. LexisNexis Risk Sols. FL
| Decision Date | 30 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-3609 (MKB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Parties | ABRAHAM ABDALLAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC. and CHEX SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants. |
Plaintiff Abraham Abdallah commenced the above-captioned action against Defendants LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc. (“LexisNexis”) and Chex Systems, Inc. (“Chex”), on June 19, 2019, and filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2019, alleging that Defendants violated sections 1681i and 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the “FCRA”); sections 380-f and 380-j of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”) - part of the New York Fair Credit Report Act (“NYFCRA”); and section 349 of the GBL. (
On May 6, 2020, LexisNexis and Chex each moved separately to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Chex Mot. to Dismiss Docket Entry No. 29; LexisNexis Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 30.) By Memorandum and Order dated March 30, 2021 (the “March 2021 Decision”), Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf granted in part and denied in part LexisNexis' motion and granted in part and denied in part Chex's motion. (Mar 2021 Decision, Docket Entry No. 35.) Judge Mauskopf denied Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants willfully failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation in violation of section 1681i of the FCRA and section 380-f of the GBL. (Id. at 15-16, 18-19.) Judge Mauskopf granted Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants: (1) failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in violation of section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and section 380-j of the GBL, (id. at 16-17, 20); and (2) engaged in deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of their business, in violation of section 349 of the GBL, (id. at 17-18, 20-21).
On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration as to his dismissed FCRA and NYFCRA claims and sought leave to file a second amended complaint to add allegations regarding (1) credit and bank account closures resulting from Defendants' dissemination of consumer reports about Plaintiff after the instant case commenced and (2) details regarding account closures and denials that occurred within two years of commencing this action. (Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration (“Pl.'s Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 44; Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. (“Pl.'s Mem.”) 1 & n.1, Docket Entry No. 44-1.)[1] Defendants oppose the motion. (Chex's Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. (“Chex Opp'n”), Docket Entry No. 48; LexisNexis' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. (“LexisNexis Opp'n”), Docket Entry No. 49.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
The Court assumes familiarity with the facts as detailed in the March 2021 Decision and provides only a summary of the pertinent facts. (See Mar. 2021 Decision 1-8.)
LexisNexis operated at all relevant times as a nationwide Consumer Reporting Agency (“CRA”) within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) and a Consumer Reporting Agency or Consumer Credit Reporting Agency within the meaning of the NYFCRA, GBL §§ 380-a(e) and k. (Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) Chex also operated at all relevant times as a nationwide Specialty Consumer Reporting Agency within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) and a Consumer Reporting Agency or Consumer Credit Reporting Agency within the meaning of NYFCRA, GBL §§ 380-a(e) and k. (Id. ¶ 24.)
LexisNexis provides reports “to various financial institutions through its Accurint program, a consumer reporting service, ” containing information regarding a consumer's “bankruptcy history”; “income and property ownership”; “criminal history”; “purported personal associations and work history”; and “co-habitant, neighbor, and neighborhood data.” (Id. ¶¶ 2829.)
At some unspecified time in 2014, Plaintiff “learned that his mortgage application had been denied in reliance on an Accurint report prepared by LexisNexis.” (Id. ¶ 30.) When Plaintiff obtained a copy of the Accurint report, “he discovered [that it was] filled with inaccurate and false information.” (Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff called LexisNexis to correct the report and, in “a follow-up letter” from LexisNexis to Plaintiff dated June 10, 2014, LexisNexis told Plaintiff “that the erroneous information in his Accurint report had come from ‘all three credit bureaus' (i.e., Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion).” (Id.) LexisNexis advised Plaintiff to contact these credit bureaus directly. (Id.) However, when Plaintiff did, “he learned that the reports from those three credit bureaus did not, in actuality, contain any of the inaccuracies found in the Accurint report.” (Id.) On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff wrote to LexisNexis to dispute the contents of his Accurint report, and asked LexisNexis to “delete all of this incorrect information.” (Id. ¶ 32.) In an effort to facilitate correction of the Accurint report, Plaintiff also enclosed with his July 8, 2014 letter “a copy of the Accurint report on which he had explicitly marked everything that was ‘incorrect or [did] not belong to [him],' all of which he demanded to be ‘removed.'” (Id. ¶ 33 (alterations in original).) In addition, Plaintiff provided LexisNexis “with summary pages of reports prepared by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, showing that the false Accurint information did not originate with them” and confirmed that “he did not ‘use any other names but [his] own exactly as written Abraham A. Abdallah [a]nd only [his] social security number and address [as provided].'” (Id. (alterations in original).)
On July 24, 2014, LexisNexis responded to Plaintiff's letter, reiterating that “the false information was attributable to the three credit bureaus, ” and stating that LexisNexis “is ‘NOT a Consumer Reporting Agency, '” and therefore, is “not governed by the [FCRA], ” and “could not and would not ‘correct or change' the abundance of erroneous information revealed by [Plaintiff].” (Id. ¶ 34.)
“After numerous banks relied upon the Accurint report when refusing to open accounts” for Plaintiff, he again wrote to LexisNexis on January 5, 2015, requesting “a copy of his current Accurint report . . . to dispute the inaccurate identifying information.” (Id. ¶ 36.) In addition, Plaintiff “again provided LexisNexis the proper spelling of his name” and his correct address, and again requested that LexisNexis “delete all the incorrect addresses other than the one [provided]” and “remove all the names on the report other than [his] own.” (Id. ().) On or about February 3, 2015, LexisNexis responded to Plaintiff, “denying that it is a [CRA] and asserting that federal law does not require LexisNexis to correct inaccurate information.” (Id. ¶ 37.) LexisNexis also provided Plaintiff with a copy of his Accurint report dated February 3, 2015, which again contained “numerous inaccuracies.” (Id. ¶ 38.)
On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff again wrote to LexisNexis to dispute the inaccurate information contained in the Accurint report, and indicated that he was encountering difficulties opening bank accounts as a result of the report. (Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff provided a copy of the report that highlighted the inaccurate information, as well as a copy of his driver's license and social security card, with a demand for the “‘immediate[]' removal of the ‘incorrect information' he identified in the report.” (Id. ¶ 40 (alteration in original).)
On or about March 21, 2016, LexisNexis responded to Plaintiff by reiterating that LexisNexis is not a CRA and it would not verify or correct inaccurate information. (Id. ¶ 41.) LexisNexis also provided Plaintiff with a new copy of his Accurint report, dated March 21, 2016, which contained a number of “new and different inaccuracies.” (Id. ¶ 42.) On or about April 1, 2016, LexisNexis sent Plaintiff another letter in response to his “continued disputes, ” again asserting that “it is not a [CRA] and it would not verify or correct inaccurate information.” (Id. ¶ 43.) In addition, LexisNexis advised Plaintiff that LexisNexis had obtained the address information from “credit bureaus, voter registration records, and utility records” and that Plaintiff should contact those sources in order to correct the Accurint report. (Id. ¶ 44.)
Plaintiff alleges that, on information and belief, and in reliance on the Accurint report prepared by LexisNexis, in June and July of 2016, Citibank closed nine accounts held by Plaintiff and his wife, and in September of 2016, Bank of America closed three accounts held by Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 45-46.)
On November 11, 2017, Plaintiff wrote to LexisNexis to dispute the inaccurate information in the Accurint report, indicating that he was “having difficulty opening a checking account at local banks based on [the Accurint] report” and that banks relied on the Accurint report “to grant credit or employment, despite the claims of LexisNexis that this did not occur.”
(Id. ¶ 47.) In the letter, Plaintiff provided his social security number, date of birth, and address, affirmed “the only names” he uses, and again asked that LexisNexis “remove all the names, addresses and incorrect [social security] numbers not belonging to [him], ” making clear that “[a]ny other names and addresses, [social security numbers], [dates of birth] other than [what he provided] is not [his] or incorrect.” (Id.)
On or about January 2, 2018, LexisNexis responded by once again asserting that it is not a CRA and that federal law does not require it to correct inaccurate information within Accurint...
To continue reading
Request your trial