Derrick Adams, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al.

Adams · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · December 3, 2025 · No. 2:23-cv-01773-DJC-JDP

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California rules on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in an action involving alleged violations of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and tortious interference with contracts. The Court concludes that the collection-agency plaintiff plausibly alleges antitrust standing, while the medical-provider plaintiffs do not establish antitrust injury or relevant-market participation. The Court also considers the sufficiency of Plaintiff Adams’s California tortious-interference claim.

Holdings

  1. AmeriFinancial Solutions plausibly alleged antitrust standing at the pleading stage because it alleged a direct contractual relationship with Experian requiring it to furnish medical-debt information and plausibly alleged that the challenged conduct devalued that service.
  2. The medical-provider plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege antitrust injury or participation in the relevant market for reporting medical-debt information, so their Sherman Act and Cartwright Act claims were dismissed.
  3. Plaintiff Adams plausibly alleged a California claim for tortious interference with existing contracts, and the motion to dismiss that claim was denied.
  4. Cape Emergency Physicians plausibly stated a New Jersey claim for tortious interference with existing contracts, and the motion to dismiss that claim was denied.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Collection Agency Plaintiff plausibly alleged antitrust standing and an antitrust injury under the Sherman Act.
  2. Whether the medical-provider plaintiffs plausibly alleged antitrust injury and participation in the relevant market under the Sherman Act and California Cartwright Act.
  3. Whether Plaintiff Adams plausibly alleged the elements of tortious interference with existing contracts under California law.
  4. Whether Cape Emergency Physicians plausibly alleged tortious interference with existing contracts under New Jersey law.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (25)

  • Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Steinle v. City & County of San Francisco, 919 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
  • City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 20 F.4th 441, 455 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Am. Ad. Mgmt., Inc. v. Gen. Tel. Co. of California, 190 F.3d 1051, 1054–59 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Cargill v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 109–10 & n.5 (1986)(followed)
  • Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 334 (1990)(followed)
  • Kristensen v. Credit Payment Servs., 12 F. Supp. 3d 1292, 1301 (D. Nev. 2014)(followed)
  • Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1510 (9th Cir. 1996)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…