Jones v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
1:25-cv-01535
S.D.N.Y.May 22, 2025Background
- Wesley Jones, a Georgia resident and federal Cyber Security Engineer, sued three credit reporting agencies (CRAs) for reporting inaccuracies and failing to correct his consumer credit reports, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its New York analog.
- The action was originally filed in New York state court, then removed to the Southern District of New York by the defendants.
- Experian moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia, arguing that all relevant events and parties are connected to Georgia, not New York.
- Mr. Jones had communicated with Experian exclusively from Georgia, and all his alleged damages (including reputational and emotional distress) occurred there.
- The parties had exchanged initial disclosures, and case management was in early stages when the venue transfer motion was filed.
- The court determined that neither party nor key witnesses or documents had a meaningful connection to New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in SDNY was proper after removal | Experian waived right to challenge venue by removing the action | Removal does not waive venue objections | Removal does not waive the right to seek a transfer of venue |
| Whether case could have been brought in N.D. Ga. | No meaningful objection, focuses on Experian's waiver argument | Yes; Jones resides and events occurred there | Court agreed case could have been brought in Northern District of Georgia |
| Appropriateness of transfer under § 1404(a) | Choice of NY forum deserves deference; injuries occurred in NY | Convenience, locus of facts favor Georgia | Transfer appropriate—key factors favor Northern District of Georgia |
| Weight of plaintiff's forum choice | Substantial deference to chosen forum | Minimal deference; Jones has no NY connection | Minimal deference—no relevant connection to New York |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (addressed federal jurisdiction and removal, not venue waiver)
- PT United Can Co. Ltd. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65 (removal to federal court does not waive venue objections)
- Moss v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 157 F.2d 1005 (removal does not waive right to challenge venue)
- Greenberg v. Giannini, 140 F.2d 550 (removal is not consent to state court venue; no waiver of venue objections)