Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Asante v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

May 31, 2019

KWAME ASANTE
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

          RULING AND ORDER

          BRIAN A. JACKSON, JUDGE

         Before the Court is Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 16) against Kwame Asante. For the reasons that follow, the Motion (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This dispute arises from a consumer credit reporting agency's alleged failure to remove false and damaging information from a credit report. (Doc. 1).

         Kwame Asante is a Louisiana-licensed attorney. (Id. at ¶[ 13). Experian is a consumer credit reporting agency. (Id. at ¶ 4). Asante, proceeding pro se, sued Experian for defaming him and violating his rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Id., at ¶¶ 12-40). He alleges that Experian defamed him by publishing "false and negative statements concerning" his credit history. (Id. at ¶ 22). He alleges that Experian violated his rights under the FCRA by failing to "perform reasonable reinvestigations" of items on his credit report. (Id. at ¶ 34).

         This is not the first time Asante has sued Experian. (Id. at ¶ 32). Less than one year before he filed this suit, he obtained a favorable judgment in another: a suit against Experian in Baton Rouge City Court. (Doc. 16-3). The judgment, entered in March 2018, awarded him $3, 000 in statutory penalties for FCRA violations occurring in June 2017. (Id.).

         Pointing to that judgment, Experian invokes Louisiana's res judicata statute, La. R.S. 13:4231, and moves for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Doc. 16). Asante opposes. (Doc. 30). His brief, however, does not address Experian's res judicata argument.[1] (Id. at pp. 1-11). In the first six pages, he restates the allegations of his complaint and recites the Rule 12(c) standard; in the remaining five pages, he requests that the Court strike Experian's defenses.[2] (Id.).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Experian's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Troice v. Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., 921 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 2019). To overcome the motion, Asante must plead a plausible claim for relief. See Romero v. City of Grapevine, Tex., 888 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A claim is plausible if it is pleaded with factual content that allows the Court to reasonably infer that Experian is liable for the misconduct alleged. See Edionwe u. Bailey, 860 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The Court accepts as true the well-pleaded facts of Asante's complaint and views those facts in the light most favorable to him. See Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. Bank of Franklin, 886 F.3d 507, 513 (5th Cir. 2018).

         Res judicata should ordinarily be pleaded as an affirmative defense, not raised in a Rule 12 motion.[3] Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 570 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005). But the Court may enter a Rule 12 dismissal on res judicata grounds if the elements of res judicata are apparent from the face of the pleadings and facts that may be judicially noticed. See Kansa Reinsurance Co. u. Congressional Mortg. Corp. of Tex., 20 F.3d 1362, 1366 (5th Cir. 1994).

         In ruling on Experian's motion, the Court may consider Asante's Baton Rouge City Court judgment because Asante references the judgment in his complaint and the judgment is central to his FCRA claim. See Ironshore Europe DAC v. Schiff Hardin, L.L.P., 912 F.3d 759, 763 (5th Cir. 2019).

         III. CHOICE OF LAW

         The Court applies Louisiana law to determine the preclusive effect of a judgment rendered by a Louisiana court. See Weaver v. Tex. Capital Bank N.A., 660 F.3d 900, 906 (5th Cir. 2011).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.