Aragon v. Experian Data Corporation
3:25-cv-00814
S.D. Cal.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Aragon sued Experian Information Solutions, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Aragon claimed Experian reported incorrect information on his credit report from December 2022 to December 2023, resulting in a lower credit score and denial of credit opportunities.
- Plaintiff filed the action seeking both injunctive and monetary relief and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) due to limited financial means.
- The court performed a mandatory screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which reviews complaints for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and claims against immune parties.
- Aragon also requested electronic filing privileges, and the court found exhibits supporting his complaint included unredacted personal and financial information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP status | Unable to pay costs without sacrificing necessities | N/A | Granted; Plaintiff demonstrated financial need |
| FCRA violations (Secs. 1681e, 1681i) | Experian reported inaccuracies, failed to correct them after notice | N/A | Sufficiently pled; claims survive screening |
| California UCL | Experian’s FCRA violations constitute unlawful business practice | N/A | Sufficiently pled; claim survives screening |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress | Suffered emotional distress due to Experian's actions | N/A | Insufficient factual allegations; dismissed w/o prejudice |
| Motion to file electronically | Meets technical/court requirements | N/A | Granted |
| Sealing of sensitive exhibits | N/A (Court concern over privacy) | N/A | Court seals unredacted exhibits |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (extends mandatory screening to all IFP complaints, not just prisoner filings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standard for plausibility at pleading stage applies)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requires facial plausibility for claims to survive dismissal)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (explains purposes and requirements of the FCRA)
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1989) (amended complaint must be complete and self-contained)