Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied Trans Union LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s two-year statute of limitations. The court held that the plaintiff’s April 26, 2023 state-court complaint was timely filed and that the later complaint related back to it. The court also concluded that the defendant had not established that the original complaint was ineffective due to lack of service or failure to prosecute.
Holdings
- The statute-of-limitations defense did not warrant judgment on the pleadings because Browne's April 26, 2023 state-court filing was timely as to the earliest accrual dates identified for both FCRA claims.
- The April 26, 2023 complaint, summons, and filing fee commenced the state-court action for statute-of-limitations purposes; the absence of a docketed return of service did not establish that the filing was ineffective.
- The November 15, 2024 pleading was an amended pleading that related back to the April 26, 2023 complaint because it arose from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence.
- Trans Union waived any defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) based on insufficient service of process by failing to assert it in a pre-answer motion or responsive pleading.
Questions Presented
- Whether Browne's FCRA claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations because the complaint removed to federal court was filed on November 15, 2024.
- Whether the April 26, 2023 state-court complaint commenced the action for limitations purposes when Browne filed the complaint, summons, and filing fee, despite the absence of docketed service and the later replacement of that pleading.
- Whether the November 15, 2024 pleading related back to the April 26, 2023 complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 15(C).
- Whether Trans Union waived any defense based on insufficient service of process by failing to assert it in a Rule 12 motion or responsive pleading.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (26)
- Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994)(followed)
- Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335, 339 (7th Cir. 2017)(followed)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resol. Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d 736, 738 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Gunn v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 968 F.3d 802, 806 (7th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Sidney Hillman Health Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc., 782 F.3d 922, 928 (7th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Cancer Found., Inc. v. Cerberus Capital Mgmt., LP, 559 F.3d 671, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 26.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…