Anders Rydholm v. Equifax Information Systems, LLC

Minneapolis, Minnesota consumer lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on Fair Credit Reporting Act violation theories.



Anders Rydholm commenced this action against two credit reporting agencies

("CRAs”), Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian”) and Trans Union, LLC

("Trans Union”), for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1681 et seq. ("FCRA”).



The district court1 dismissed the complaint for failure to

state plausible claims.



-2-

§ 1681 et seq. ("FCRA”). The district court1 dismissed the complaint for failure to

state plausible claims. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Rydholm filed a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 7 on May 14, 2019. His

bankruptcy schedules listed a Wells Fargo credit card ending in *1765 as an

unsecured nonpriority claim of $7,977. The bankruptcy court entered a discharge

order a little over three months later.

On November 6, 2019, Rydholm obtained credit reports from both Experian

and Trans Union. The Trans Union report detailed in the public records section that

Rydholm had received a discharge, but it still listed the *1765 account as "Current;

Paid or Paying as Agreed” with an outstanding balance of $7,986. The report from

Experian also listed the account as open with the same balance. While the Experian

report noted that Rydholm had filed for bankruptcy, it did not mention the discharge

in the public records section. Notwithstanding the *1765 account, Rydholm's other

bankruptcy debts appeared as discharged.

In March 2020, Rydholm sued Experian and Trans Union, claiming the CRAs

violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) because they "do not maintain reasonable procedures

to ensure debts that are derogatory prior to a consumer's bankruptcy filing do not

continue to report balances owing or past due amounts when those debts are almost

certainly discharged in bankruptcy.” Rydholm requested damages for credit denials,

less favorable borrowing rates, and emotional distress. The CRAs jointly moved to

dismiss the complaint, contending Rydholm failed to plausibly allege their reporting-3-

procedures were unreasonable.2 The district court granted the motion and dismissed

the case with prejudice.

Affirmed