A District Court judge in Indiana has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ruling that the five-sentence complaint that was originally filed in state court was done so within the two-year statute of limitations, even though the defendant was never served and the case was not pursued until 18 months later, when an amended complaint was filed.
The background: The plaintiff filed a barebones, five-sentence complaint in Indiana state court in April 2023 alleging that the defendant reported inaccurate information and failed to correct it despite multiple disputes.
- The complaint and summons were filed and the filing fee was paid the same day, which under Indiana law is sufficient to commence an action. No further activity took place for 18 months.
- In November 2024, the plaintiff filed a slightly revised complaint in the same case number, adding only one sentence about damages.
- The defendant removed the case to federal court, answered, and later sought dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds, arguing the operative November 2024 complaint was filed too late.
- The plaintiff countered that the April 2023 filing stopped the statute of limitations clock and that the later complaint merely amended the original filing.
The ruling: Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana agreed, holding that the original complaint — though minimal, unserved, and dormant for more than a year — was still timely and still legally “pending” until it was amended. Under Indiana precedent, a lawsuit commences for statute-of-limitations purposes when the complaint, summons, and filing fee are submitted, regardless of whether service occurs immediately.
- Judge Springmann noted that the defendant “cites no law to show that the April 26, 2023 Complaint, Summons, and filing fee did not satisfy the statute of limitations” and emphasized that the defendant, not the plaintiff, bears the burden of proving a limitations defense.
- The judge also rejected the defendant’s argument that lack of service nullified the original complaint, writing that any service-related defense “was waived” because it was never raised in the defendant’s answer.
- The court further highlighted that the amended complaint related back under Indiana procedural rules because it concerned the same conduct and allegations.
