The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN BISSELL, Chief Judge, District
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Trans Union,
Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Defendant
Equifax Information Services LLC's motions for reconsideration of
a portion of this Court's June 24, 2005 Memorandum/Order on
summary judgment. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332.
A complete factual recitation can be found in this Court's June
24, 2005 Opinion. In it, this Court stated the following:
It is undisputed that defendants Experian, Equifax
and Trans Union are "consumer reporting agencies" as
defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) and the credit
reports that have been produced are "consumer
reports" within the terms of 15 U.S.C. § 1681(d). It
is also undisputed that plaintiffs are "consumers" as
defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
See June 24, 2005 Opinion, at 24 n. 4. The Defendants Experian,
Equifax and Trans Union submit that it is not undisputed that the
credit reports that have been produced are "consumer reports"
within the terms of 15 U.S.C. § 1681(d). Rather, they contend
that the reports are "Disclosures to consumers" as that term is
used in § 1681g. Defendants' present moving papers also
demonstrate that Plaintiffs have not previously characterized the
documents in question as "consumer reports." Trans Union Br. at
1, 2. Plaintiffs filed no opposition to the present motion. The
moving Defendants argue that this distinction is material to §
1681e(b) claims, because such claims may only be based on
A. Standard for a Motion for Reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration is governed by Local Civil Rule
7.1(i). It requires that the moving party "set forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the
[Court] has overlooked." Pittston Co. v. Sedgwick James of New
York, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 915, 918-919 (D.N.J. 1997). Thus, a
party "must show more than a disagreement with the court's
decision." Panna v. Firstrust Sav. Bank, 760 F. Supp. 432, 435
(D.N.J. 1991). A mere "recapitulation of the cases and arguments
considered by the court before rendering its original decision
fails to carry the moving party's burden." Carteret Sav. Bank,
F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp 705, 709 (D.N.J. 1989). "Only where
the court has overlooked matters that, if considered by the
court, might reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion,
will it entertain such a motion." Re: United States v.
Compaction Sys. Corp. et al., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J.
This Court finds that it inaccurately described the reports
issued to Plaintiffs as "consumer reports." A "consumer report,"
as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d), is "any written, oral, or
other communication of any information by a consumer reporting
agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit
standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation,
personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or
expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the
purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility. . . ." See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d). The information
provided to the Plaintiffs in the instant case was not in
"consumer reports" as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d); rather
they were "Disclosures to consumers." Title 15 U.S.C. § 1681g
states that "every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request,
and subject to section 1681h(a)(1) of this title, clearly and
accurately disclose to the consumer: (1) all information in the
consumer's file at the time of the request,. . . ." See
15 U.S.C. § 1681g.
Section 1681e(b) claims are based on the preparation and
dissemination of consumer reports and not on disclosures to
consumers. Therefore, Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant
CRAs which are based on 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) must be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Court's June 24, 2005 Opinion and Order is
amended to include this dismissal.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Trans Union, Defendant
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Defendant Equifax
Information Services LLC's motions for reconsideration of a
portion of this Court's June 24, 2005 Memorandum/Order on summary
judgment is granted. Any claims of the Plaintiffs against those Defendants which are based upon 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) are
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...