A District Court judge in Virginia has denied a number of plaintiff’s motions in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, including one seeking sanctions against the defendant.
The background: The dispute began after the defendant filed a debt collection action in state court seeking to recover a balance of $9,683.67. That action was dismissed with prejudice when the defendant’s counsel failed to appear.
- The plaintiff later sued in state court, alleging that the defendant falsely reported a non-existent debt using his Social Security number. The complaint asserted violations of the FCRA, identity theft statutes, fraud, and defamation, and sought $500,000 in damages.
- After the case was removed to federal court, the defendant filed its answer with several affirmative defenses. The plaintiff then filed a flurry of motions, including a motion to strike those defenses, a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of the state court dismissal and apply preclusion, and a motion to strike portions of his own deposition testimony while seeking sanctions.
The ruling: Judge Jasmine H. Yoon of the District Court for the Western District of Virginia rejected each of these efforts. On the motion to strike affirmative defenses, the judge emphasized that motions to strike are “generally viewed with disfavor” and noted that an amended answer had already superseded the original, rendering the motion moot. Even if considered on the merits, the court said the defenses provided adequate notice and were “contextually comprehensible.”
- Judge Yoon granted judicial notice only in part, accepting the fact of the prior dismissal but refusing to make any legal findings about res judicata at this stage.
- The plaintiff’s attempt to strike his own deposition testimony and obtain sanctions was also denied. Judge Yoon found no abuse by the defendant during the deposition and noted that discovery questions about the plaintiff’s damages and the underlying debt action were permissible.
- In an excerpt included in the ruling, the magistrate judge cautioned the plaintiff that refusing to answer relevant questions could lead to sanctions: “You need to answer the questions that are within your knowledge and not speculate.”
