A District Court judge in Minnesota has awarded a plaintiff more than $27,000 in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case over information that was furnished to the plaintiff’s credit report that predated him moving to the United States and obtaining a Social Security number. The ruling offers a detailed look at how courts view fee disputes, mixed-file issues, and the obligations of furnishers and consumer reporting agencies when a consumer’s identity information changes.
The background: The plaintiff moved to the United States in 2023 and received a Social Security number the following year. Soon after, he discovered that his new credit file was populated with contact information and debts that were not his and that predated his arrival in the country.
- He sued several companies, alleging violations of the FCRA for including, disseminating, and failing to investigate inaccurate information on his credit report.
- One defendant extended an offer of judgment for $7,500 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. After negotiations over fees stalled, the plaintiff sought court intervention.
- In total, he requested more than $28,000 in fees and costs tied to the work performed against the defendant, which rejected both his hourly rate and the hours claimed.
The ruling: Judge Katherine Menendez of the District Court for the District of Minnesota sided largely with the plaintiff, concluding that the requested hourly rate of $425 was reasonable given prevailing consumer law rates in the Twin Cities and recent decisions approving similar rates. Judge Menendez also found that roughly 40 hours spent litigating the case were appropriate, emphasizing that the matter involved multiple defendants, discovery, and unusual facts surrounding the plaintiff’s immigration timeline.
- While the defendant argued the case was a simple credit-reporting dispute, the court disagreed. Judge Menendez also rejected the argument that only a fraction of the claimed hours were attributable to this defendant, noting the defense failed to identify which entries were improper.
- The judge did make limited reductions, including time billed for clerical work and correcting an email oversight. But overall, it concluded that the plaintiff’s counsel “expended reasonable hours negotiating and litigating the attorney’s fee award.”
- In total, the plaintiff was awarded $27,886.25, which includes the $7,500 offer of judgment, $20,175 in attorneys’ fees, and $211.25 in recoverable costs.
