A District Court judge in Ohio has granted a defendant’s motion to convert the dismissal of a Fair Credit Reporting Act case to one with prejudice while also denying a motion from the plaintiff, who was representing herself, to vacate the dismissal and reinstate her claims against the three credit reporting agencies.
The background: The plaintiff filed multiple claims under the FCRA against three credit reporting agencies. Early in the case, she participated in scheduling and planning and attended the initial case management conference. But when the Court later scheduled two telephone status conferences and ordered her to submit written settlement demands to each defendant, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to participate. She missed both scheduled conferences and sent a settlement demand to only one of the three agencies.
- The plaintiff was warned after the first missed conference that further noncompliance could result in sanctions up to dismissal of the case. When she missed the second conference and failed to comply with the settlement-demand requirement, the Court dismissed her claims without prejudice. It also allowed defendants to seek dismissal with prejudice, which one defendant did.
- The plaintiff then resurfaced to oppose that request and filed a motion seeking to vacate the dismissal, claiming she had not received notice of the hearings.
The ruling: Judge James R. Knepp II of the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio concluded that the plaintiff’s conduct demonstrated a “reckless disregard” for the litigation and constituted “contumacious” behavior, warranting dismissal with prejudice.
- The opinion highlights inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s claims that she lacked notice. Judge Knepp noted she had received earlier notices at the same address and email, participated in earlier proceedings, and even managed to send a settlement demand to one defendant. Judge Knepp wrote that a “naked assertion of a lack of notice, without further explanatory information, does not relieve Plaintiff of her continued duty to monitor the docket.”
- The judge also rejected her request to reinstate the case, finding she failed to show excusable neglect. Her vague claim of a “family health crisis” was insufficient because she made no attempt to notify the Court or seek an extension.
